BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Leeds City Council Bill

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.
	 Second Reading deferred until  Wednesday 3 June  at Four o'clock  (Standing Order No. 20(2)).

Nottingham City Council Bill

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.
	 Second Reading deferred until  Wednesday 3 June  at Four o'clock  (Standing Order No. 20(2)) .

Reading Borough Council Bill

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.
	 Second Reading deferred until  Wednesday 3 June  at Four o'clock  (Standing Order No. 20(2)) .

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

TRANSPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Track Renewals

Hugh Bayley: How much funding his Department contributed to track renewals in the last five years; and how much it plans to contribute for such purposes in the next five years.

Geoff Hoon: The Government have allocated some £15 billion to the railways over the next five years. This is part of a total of £26.7 billion that Network Rail has to manage and improve the network over that period. We do not allocate funding specifically for track renewals. It is for Network Rail to decide the level of expenditure on track renewals given its overall funding, which is determined by the Office of Rail Regulation.

Hugh Bayley: The Government are right to invest in transport infrastructure during the economic downturn, but despite having more money, Network Rail this year cut its spending on track renewals, and Jarvis plc, a York-based company that does such work, had to make 450 people redundant. Would it not be better for the Government's money to be used to improve the railway, not to make redundancy payments? Will the Secretary of State press Network Rail to sign next year's contracts as soon as possible, so that some of these men can go back to work?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend has consistently and conscientiously raised the position of his constituents, and I well understand why he does so. I appreciate the arguments that he puts forward, and I was grateful to him for coming to see me and raising these matters directly. I emphasise that Network Rail's total output will remain as previously planned. One reason for rephasing the work is to allow what is essentially new technology to be available in the form of modular sets of points and new equipment that will allow the work to be done more efficiently and effectively. I repeat that the total amount of work will be unchanged by the rephasing.

James Clappison: Is the Secretary of State aware that the condition of the track, and particularly the points system, goes to the heart of the issues concerning the Potters Bar rail crash, which now took place more than seven years ago? I appreciate the personal interest that he has taken in this case, but does he agree that seven years is far too long to have to wait for an inquiry into these important issues?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue, which I have taken seriously in the time that I have been in this position. I recognise the anxiety of those most directly affected by the terrible tragedy that took place, and it is important that we resolve that as soon as possible by an appropriate form of inquiry.

Louise Ellman: I welcome the investment in Network Rail, but is it not time that some urgency was shown in improving Network Rail's efficiency, so that major parts of the network are not closed down on bank holidays, stopping people being able to travel around the country and forcing more cars on to the roads?

Geoff Hoon: I have regular meetings with Network Rail and I can assure my hon. Friend that that is something that we regularly discuss. Network Rail is in no doubt of the importance of achieving greater efficiency in the work that it does and it recognises the problems that the kinds of stoppages she describes cause to an increasing number of passengers at weekends, when our railway is increasingly busy, so I hope Network Rail will address the matter.

Brooks Newmark: Braintree has seen tremendous growth in the past 10 years, yet there is only a single track between Witham and Braintree. Is the Minister aware of any progress that has been made on what is known locally as the Cressing loop, which is dualling the track between Witham and Braintree?

Geoff Hoon: I am not specifically aware of the particular piece of track, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman once an appropriate answer is available. What I can say to him is that I recognise that there are capacity questions right across our network, which is entirely the result of the remarkable success of our railways in recent years. We now carry more passengers than at any time since 1946, which necessarily means that there are capacity questions, and this Government are addressing them.

Kelvin Hopkins: The fact is that track renewals under privatisation cost many times what they cost under British Rail, and the work is certainly done no better. Has my right hon. Friend investigated why that is the case, and does it not argue strongly in favour of public ownership as opposed to privatisation?

Geoff Hoon: On every occasion that I do Transport questions, I need to say that I come from a railway family. Since both my parents and my grandfather worked for the railway and were involved in British Rail, I have a natural predisposition to what my hon. Friend suggests. Unfortunately, however, the evidence is against him, and I suspect that if he examined the costs of British Rail he would not find much support for his contention.

Norman Baker: Perhaps I should declare an interest as a former employee of British Rail. Network Rail promised a year ago to move towards a seven-day railway, yet we have seen no progress. For example, in Lewes, between 1 January and the end of March, on 11 weekends there were rail replacement buses instead of a proper train service, which is simply unacceptable. Is it not time to give Network Rail an incentive to move towards a seven-day railway, and would it not be a good idea to reduce ticket prices by, say, a third, when there are rail replacement buses?

Geoff Hoon: I am sure that British Rail regretted the loss of the hon. Gentleman's service, and I hope that he can make a contribution to the future of the railways in his current position. I accept that it is important that we move towards a seven-day railway, and that, as I said in answering the previous question, we find ways to co-operate with Network Rail on weekend journeys, because so many more passengers are using the railway at weekends. That means looking at innovative ways of attracting passengers on to the railway. Weekend and off-peak prices are very competitive these days, but I am confident that his suggestions will be looked at seriously by the train operating companies.

Cyclist Safety

Andrew Robathan: What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of measures to ensure the safety of cyclists.

Geoff Hoon: While local highway authorities are directly responsible for assessing the effectiveness of cycle safety measures, the Department for Transport is strongly involved in promoting the safety of cyclists. The Department has commissioned a cycle safety research project that will assess the effectiveness of various measures, including road user safety and cycling data, cycling infrastructure, attitudes and behaviour, and cycle helmets.

Andrew Robathan: I am sure that the Secretary of State knows that I used to be the chairman of the all-party cycling group—until I was deposed in a very new Labour putsch in 1997, which installed the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), as an excellent chairman. I think I am still the vice-chairman, but I am not sure.
	The Secretary of State may know of the Cyclists' Touring Club "Safety in numbers" campaign, which makes the valid prognosis that cycling becomes safer when more people do it, not only because motorists have to slow down, but because cyclists like me know when driving a car how dangerous cycling is. In his project, will he ensure that local authorities realise that the more cyclists there are, the safer cycling becomes, and that they should not simply try to get cyclists out of the way?

Geoff Hoon: I am sorry that 12 years on, the hon. Gentleman still feels such personal resentment about the operation of democracy in the House, but it is a clear testament to his commitment to cycling. I hope that every day when he thinks about that terrible injustice, he will nevertheless reflect on the great success of the all-party cycling group in promoting cycling. No doubt, he will continue to play a part in that.
	More seriously, as the hon. Gentleman said, it is important that we continue to encourage cycling and, indeed, walking, and that they should be done safely and securely. I strongly support his suggestion and I take a keen interest in this area of Government activity. We want to promote cycling and we want more people to take advantage of it—safely.

David Drew: As a fellow cyclist, I commend the CTC campaign. At the same time, last week an important National Audit Office report drew attention to the threat to cyclists and pedestrians. I have always worked on the basis that one out of 10 motorists does not behave safely with regard to cyclists, and that one in 10 of those is a homicidal maniac. Is it time, particularly in rural areas, that we trained motorists to be far more responsible in their treatment of cyclists? Surely the Department could take that up.

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend makes some important points. We welcome the findings of the NAO report and will carefully consider its contents. Concern has been expressed about the apparent recent increase in the number of cyclists killed or seriously injured, but over the trend period, the reduction is clear: cycling is becoming safer. The reasons for the very recent increase are not entirely clear to us, but we are looking into it.
	It is important that we continue to promote safe cycling. We invest significant sums of public money in cycling training, which we are expanding across schools. We need to continue to support that work, so that we have safe cyclists in future.

Peter Bottomley: The Secretary of State will understand that an increase in cycling can lead to a lower risk for each cyclist but a greater number of casualties among cyclists—that is one of the consequences of modal shift.
	Will the Secretary of State ensure that his study, when it is published, shows both that crashes are a consequence of conflict, and that secondary protection makes a difference?
	Will the Secretary of State ensure that a comparison is made between the Netherlands, where cyclists tend not to wear energy-absorbing helmets, and this country, where cyclists do tend to wear them, even though the CTC has not got around to recommending it?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman makes some good points and I will certainly take them into account when the report is published. I would like to spend a little more time studying the success of cycling in the Netherlands. Safety is clearly important, and I believe that we should campaign to encourage people to wear cycle helmets, which can help in especially serious conflicts between cyclists and motor vehicles.

Robert Goodwill: As a heavy-goods driver and a cyclist, I understand all too well the hazard caused to cyclists from the rear wheels of large vehicles, particularly at junctions. Does the Secretary of State think that the proposal from our brilliant Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, to allow cyclists to turn left on red and thus get out of the way before the lights change might improve matters?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful for that suggestion from the multi-talented Front Bencher. I shall certainly carefully consider the proposal, although there are some concerns about the safety implications of such a relaxation. As one who has lived and worked in the United States, where turning on red lights is routine for motor vehicles, I know that the idea has been considered for motor vehicles generally in the UK. What is important is that we put the safety criteria first—we have to assess whether it can be done safely. If it can, I would certainly take a positive view of it.

Unadopted Roads (Former Coalfield Areas)

Natascha Engel: If he will assess the merits of providing funding to bring unadopted roads in former coalfield areas up to adoptable standards.

Paul Clark: Local Authorities have available to them a number of funding sources that they could use to bring unadopted roads up to the standards for adoption. They include revenue support grant, prudential borrowing, capital receipts, local transport plan funding and the neighbourhood renewal fund. It is a matter for local authorities to prioritise how their funds are allocated.

Natascha Engel: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but as he knows, unadopted roads are a legacy of mining, and it is both unfair and unaffordable for many local authorities to bring such roads up to adoptable standards. Many of those roads are in such a state of disrepair that they are becoming quite dangerous. Will he look into providing some national ring-fenced money for local authorities covering ex-mining areas to deal with the problem?

Paul Clark: I recognise that there is a problem in coalfield communities. The matter has been considered by the coalfields forum, which is led by my colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government, and by the coalfield alliance. A number of regeneration programmes have worked in former coalfield communities to look at the possibilities. Essentially, the matter is one for local authorities, but I am always ready to engage in dialogue and to listen, and I will be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the subject.

Ann Clwyd: Given the demands on local authorities to prioritise, has the Department made any estimate of: first, the number of unadopted roads, and secondly, how much it would cost to make them adoptable? I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) that they are a great problem in coalmining communities such as mine in Cynon Valley, where, right now, we are probably all out canvassing for the local authority or European elections. In my 25 years as a Member, the issue has been the one constant about which people who live in areas with unadopted roads have been really aggrieved. I hope that we will have some answers for them on this occasion.

Paul Clark: The assessment that was undertaken back in the 1980s found some 40,000 unadopted roads throughout the country. The estimate is that, at today's prices, it would cost £3 billion to bring them all up to adopted standards. However, I must point out to right hon. and hon. Members that, excluding London funding, £2.1 billion has been allocated up to 2010-11 for capital expenditure programmes. We must recognise the demands in a given area, and that is why it is best left to local authorities to make the decision about which roads should be adopted and considered.

Gordon Prentice: This is an issue not just in mining areas, however. There are thousands of miles of unadopted roads in Lancashire. They are often damaged by heavy vehicles such as council rubbish trucks, and the responsibility for repairing the road falls not on the council but on the people who have the misfortune to live in houses alongside the road. What more can be done? It is not good enough for the Minister to say that local authorities must prioritise. Surely we need ring-fenced funds, along the lines that my friend from Derbyshire suggested.

Paul Clark: My hon. Friend will be aware that our general thrust has been to ensure that local authorities have substantial funds in several areas, but that they should be able to prioritise, meeting and consulting the people whom they represent and on whose behalf they work. I reiterate that we have provided generous funds over the three years to 2011, with more than £2 billion, excluding London funding, for capital provision. The matter must be dealt with in respect of all priorities and an assessment of all needs in local authority areas.

Variable Speed Limits

Greg Knight: What recent assessment he has made of the effects on road safety of variable speed limits.

Jim Fitzpatrick: No recent assessment of the effects on road safety of variable speed limits has been undertaken by the Department on local roads or by the Highways Agency on the strategic road network. However, the monitoring of safety on the active traffic management section of the M42 shows the benefits that have resulted from a package of measures which includes the use of variable speed limits.

Greg Knight: Does the Minister not agree that our roads are safer if the speed limits in force are appropriate and therefore respected? Is he aware that a number of local authorities, some of them second rate, refuse to consider the introduction of variable speed limits, simply on the ground of the extra cost of the necessary signage? Will he therefore consider instructing or at least advising local authorities that they always reflect on whether a variable speed limit is the more appropriate answer? What is wrong with having a 20 mph speed limit outside a school only when that school is in use?

Jim Fitzpatrick: The right hon. Gentleman has a point to make. As he knows, we are consulting on our post-2010 road safety strategy, and we know that 20 mph limits are popular in many areas. They are a relatively new phenomenon and we are gathering evidence on the success that has clearly resulted from the introduction of 20 mph limits or zones. He also has a point in that those local authorities that have tried variable speed limits ought to be able to supply us with data so that we can incorporate them into the consultation, because we intend to issue new, stronger guidance both on 20 mph limits and, for local authorities where there is a 60 mph limit, on dangerous rural single carriageways. It is appropriate to have them revisit the issue, and variable speed limits, looking after the motorist and promoting safety, may very well be another way forward.

Rosie Cooper: Most of the main roads in Skelmersdale do not have pavements, so people are forced to use underpasses—or often to cross the roads. In particular, there are two major secondary schools with 1,500 pupils, who, when discharged, are supposed to go through underpasses or take the back way. In reality, however, they cross the main road. A child has died, yet the local authority says—to the horror of the head teacher, the rest of the school and the parents—that because the road is a main road it cannot support a reduction in the speed limit. Can my hon. Friend's officials suggest anything to help us with traffic calming measures?

Jim Fitzpatrick: As I mentioned to the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) a moment ago, we are going to issue new, stronger guidance on the use of 20 mph limits and on appropriate speed limits for other roads. Clearly, I am concerned to hear my hon. Friend's description of roads without pavements and the vulnerable situation of many pupils. I hope that the Department's guidance will be of use to the head teacher and parents. However, we have devolved to local authorities the decision to determine the speed limits on roads because they know their roads far better than we do at the Department. However, I hope that the guidance that is to be issued will assist my hon. Friend and her community.

Alan Beith: Is the Minister aware that in my constituency, which covers a very large area, there is strong support for strict enforcement of low speed limits in the villages, but real concern at the idea that 50 mph might become the default speed limit, given that it would apply to every road in the constituency, including large parts of the A1?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point. We have clarified as best we can that we are not proposing a blanket ban or reduction from 60 mph to 50 mph on single rural carriageways. However, given that 62 per cent. of fatalities occur on roads with only 40 per cent. of the traffic, we clearly believe that the 60 mph limit is inappropriate for some roads. In the consultation document that we have issued, we propose to produce annual reports on the performance of roads, indicating where there are greater dangers.
	We will issue stronger guidance to say to local authorities that there is no national 60 mph limit and that there can be 50 mph limits if appropriate. Many villages on these routes would certainly want 20 mph and 30 mph limits. I go back to the point made by the right hon. Gentleman in the original question: we need flexibility to make sure that motorists are able to get from A to B as efficiently as possible. However, we also need to make sure that they do that safely, and that the communities through which they travel are protected.

Christopher Chope: Will the Minister condemn unequivocally those local authorities that adopt a policy of reducing speed by not repairing pot holes, thereby deliberately contributing to an increase in road danger and costing local authority council tax payers £53 million a year in compensation?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I have heard and read reports of pot holes being used as a device to reduce speed, but I cannot believe that a deliberate decision by local authorities is involved. Pot holes endanger road users because vehicles may have to veer to avoid them; furthermore, they may damage vehicles' braking and steering systems. Clearly, pot holes ought to be repaired where possible. The Government give local authorities generous grants to make sure that such matters are addressed. I do not want local authorities to use pot holes as a way of slowing down traffic.

Speed Limits

Richard Ottaway: What responses he has received to his recent consultation on speed limits; and if he will make a statement.

Jim Fitzpatrick: "A Safer Way", our road safety consultation published on 21 April, which I mentioned a moment ago, aims to reduce road deaths by a third by 2020. We make a range of proposals, two of which are carefully targeted to reduce speed. The first is that local authorities should reduce limits to 20 mph on roads of a primarily residential nature and around schools, and the second is that highway authorities should reduce limits from 60 mph on the more dangerous rural single carriageways, when the evidence supports that. We have started receiving representations. The closing date for the consultation is 14 July.

Richard Ottaway: Does the Minister accept that such worthy policy objectives bring into play the law of unintended consequences? Does he agree that this will increase journey times, which will increase congestion, with a knock-on effect on pollution? Is he aware that the Institution of Chemical Engineers has said that in areas where the speed limit is reduced to 20 mph, there will be a 15 per cent. increase in CO2 emissions and a 50 per cent. increase in nitrous oxide? What impact will that have on meeting his Government's emissions targets?

Jim Fitzpatrick: We are conscious of the question of emissions, and I am sure that that will be examined as part of the consultation and monitored closely by the Department of Energy and Climate Change. However, variable speeds have been shown to be able to assist in managing and reducing congestion. The consequence that we are trying to achieve as a result of the consultation document is further to progress the improvements that we have seen in road safety. Between 2002 and 2007, there was a reduction of some 36 per cent. in people killed or seriously injured on our roads. In the longer term, our ambition is to achieve the safest roads in the world. We are looking to have a further reduction of one third in casualties by the end of the next 10-year strategy. Speed reductions are part of that, because inappropriate speeds and people breaking the speed limits cause some 700 deaths and 20,000 injuries in an average year.

Russell Brown: The consultation has caused confusion in the minds of some. In a rural constituency such as mine, which has three single carriageway trunk roads, there is concern that the aim is to reduce the speed limit from 60 mph to 50 mph. Can the Minister give a guarantee to my constituents that major single carriageway trunk roads will not have that reduction imposed?

Jim Fitzpatrick: As I have been trying to outline, I cannot guarantee that there will not be reductions from 60 mph to 50 mph on some roads. We are trying to achieve a reduction in speed on roads where people are being killed and seriously injured in disproportionate numbers because the quality of the road is not as good as that of most of the A roads in the country. We are looking to make an assessment, we will produce the data, and it will then be for local authorities and highway authorities to make a determination as to the appropriate speed limit for the roads concerned. We are not proposing to introduce a blanket reduction across the country: this is targeted for best effect to ensure that vehicular traffic can get from A to B as efficiently as possible, but also safely.

Theresa Villiers: As of this morning, a petition against the Government's A road speed limit proposal is ranked No. 2 on the Downing street website, beaten only by one entitled with the single word, "Resign". So it is official: Labour's speed limit policy is the most unpopular thing in the country apart from the Prime Minister, though admittedly he is ahead by a comfortable margin of 30,000.
	Everything that the Minister has said this morning has signalled a major retreat on the briefing on this issue given to journalists in March. Why does not he go the whole way and drop the Government proposals that are on the table?

Jim Fitzpatrick: With the greatest respect to journalists, there was no briefing to say that we were reducing the speed limit on single carriageways from 60 mph to 50 mph across the country. We signalled a clear intention to issue new guidance based on data that we will collect on an annual basis on the performance of roads to identify those that are most dangerous—where more people are being killed. As I mentioned earlier, the clear statistic in all this is that 62 per cent. of people are dying on those roads, which carry only 40 per cent. of the traffic. There is a disconnect in this regard. We need to ensure that we can assess the more dangerous roads and that they then have an appropriate speed limit. There is no retreat; the proposal has never been for a blanket ban. We are targeting where the 50 mph limit should be introduced, and we will produce guidance for local authorities, not an instruction or a blanket reduction.

Theresa Villiers: But will the Minister not recognise that the flaw in reducing the default speed limit, which is what he is proposing to do, is that it will hit all motorists with a collective punishment for the actions of the irresponsible few, rather than target high-risk, problem drivers? Why are the Government failing on these problem drivers? Why, after a decade in charge of our roads, are they still using a test for drug-drivers that is no more sophisticated than asking them to walk in a straight line? Why is the average fine for uninsured rogue drivers less than £200, and will he admit that reduced speed limits and more speed cameras will not tackle either of those—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I shall try to deal with the main elements of the hon. Lady's questions. First, we think that we are making progress. The road safety strategy for 2000-10 targeted a 40 per cent. reduction in deaths and serious injuries. Up to 2007, it was 36 per cent., so we should reach that. We had the lowest number of such deaths in recorded history in 2007, at 2,946. That is progress, and it is to the great credit of the police, local authorities, road safety officers and everybody else who is campaigning on road safety.
	On the direction of travel, we want a further reduction and we want Britain's roads to be the safest in the world again, as they were previously. On dealing with those who are transgressing against our laws, we are dealing with uninsured drivers and those who do not have road tax. The numbers are the lowest they ever have been. We had a consultation suggesting that those who recklessly and dangerously speed should get double points on their licence, because that will bring them to book. We are ensuring that the sensible, decent, ordinary, courteous motorists are the ones whom we are trying to protect, and we believe they are on the side of stronger legislation and guidance. We want safer roads, and we want those who transgress against the laws dealt with.

Topical Questions

David Evennett: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Geoff Hoon: On 16 April, together with my noble and right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, I announced the Government's plans to promote ultra low-carbon vehicles. That will include financial help for those who wish to purchase low-carbon cars. During the Easter parliamentary recess, my noble Friend the Minister of State, who has responsibility for rail, made a six-day, highly successful rail tour of the United Kingdom. He travelled 2,200 miles on local and national services, and has since announced the appointment of two station champions to suggest ways in which station facilities could be improved.
	On 21 April, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), announced the publication of the Government's new wide-ranging road safety proposals, aimed at making Britain's roads the safest in the world. Yesterday I was in Manchester to welcome an accelerated transport package for Greater Manchester, including plans for new Metrolink lines from Chorlton to East Didsbury and from Droylsden to Ashton-under-Lyne. These extensions, along with those already under way, will result in Manchester's tram network being twice the size that it is today.
	The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Paul Clark), invited English cities to bid for up to £29 million in funding to be the country's first sustainable travel city. That follows the success of the country's three sustainable travel towns.

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I say that I try to use topical questions for the benefit of the Back Benchers? That should be borne in mind.

David Evennett: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Secretary of State for his response.
	At a time when we are encouraging more people to travel by train, is the Secretary of State not concerned about the problems faced by disabled people in endeavouring to access some station platforms? In particular, may I draw his attention to the lack of disabled access to Crayford station in my constituency, operated by Southeastern, and ask him what he can to do assist with the problem and its solution?

Geoff Hoon: This is a concern for the Government and we are addressing it. I anticipate that there will be some modest funds available to improve access for the disabled. It is important that we ensure that all our citizens, able-bodied and disabled alike, have access to the railway network.

Jim Devine: Should the Government really be putting billions of pounds into Network Rail when, as a result of employment practices by a director of human resources, a man who called one of his staff a black effing b—, who kissed another member of staff on the cheek when she was on the phone, who asked to see the "white bits" of a member of staff as he asked her to take her top off when she came back from holiday, and who—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have always said right at the beginning of every Session that we must be careful as to how we use parliamentary privilege. I do not wish that the Minister should respond to this matter.

Andrew Selous: In March, I had a helpful meeting in Dunstable with officials from the Department about progressing the A5-M1 link—the vital bypass in my constituency. May I say to the Secretary of State that that is key to local economic regeneration in the whole of my constituency and beyond? Does he have any news for my constituents about how the scheme can be progressed more quickly than is currently indicated?

Paul Clark: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman had a useful meeting with officials, and we will always endeavour to assist in that way. He will be aware of the complications involved in the programming, together with the hard-shoulder widening in the M1 programme. We are considering various issues arising from those discussions. Work is continuing, and we will push ahead as soon as possible.

Natascha Engel: I want to ask the Minister about the welcome review of concessionary bus travel. He will be aware that there have been some problems locally, but people are very worried that they will lose the concessionary bus travel scheme. Will he confirm that the review will not jeopardise that scheme, on which many people aged 60 and over totally rely?

Paul Clark: I reassure the House that we are proud of our decisions in 2001, 2006 and 2008 to give some 11 million people access to free local bus services across the country. The current consultation is examining an improved administrative system and is looking at raising it from district authorities to county councils. I encourage all concerned to contribute to that review, but we are emphatic about keeping the facility and the provision in place.

Ann Winterton: Eurostar has received huge amounts of taxpayer's money in investment, yet nine years after the introduction of the pet passport scheme, which insists on strict rabies vaccine requirements, it refuses to allow passengers to take their dogs or cats on board, whereas regional railways and the tube allow that. Is that not wrong? What do the Government propose to do about it?

Geoff Hoon: I have to say that I am not entirely sure, but we will seriously investigate the matter.

John Barrett: There is enthusiasm in all parts of the House for a high-speed rail link, but does the Secretary of State agree that a UK-wide high-speed rail system needs a United Kingdom, and that a separate Scotland would be a hindrance to any future proposals?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is right. I have recently looked at Spain's high-speed network proposals, and part of its avowed intention in allowing people to travel at high speed across the whole of Spain is to pull the country together. It seems to me important that the ambition for this country should be to achieve the same.

Tom Harris: Will the stations champion have responsibility for defending the legitimate rights of train-spotters? There is a serious civil liberties issue, as train enthusiasts have been impeded by station staff and prevented from pursuing an interest that is at least harmless, and at best can add to the security of a station.

Geoff Hoon: There has been much over-writing about the modest changes that are likely to occur as a result of extra security in our stations. We would all welcome that extra security, and it is important that people should be free to go about their legitimate enjoyment of their private time. I know how keen some hon. Members, particularly on the Liberal Democrat Benches, are on train-spotting. I would not want enhanced facilities for security to inhibit in any way my hon. Friend's pursuit of his leisure-time activities.

Tony Baldry: From 2011, the increase in public spending will reduce to 0.7 per cent. a year, but many programmes, such as that of the Highways Agency, go on to 2014. How will the Secretary of State ensure that the highways building programme does not shudder to a halt in 2011? There will be considerable dismay in areas such as mine if the improvements to junction 9 on the M40, which have been promised for a long time, are affected suddenly in 2011 by everyone saying, "Terribly sorry, there is no money."

Geoff Hoon: I am quite confident that the programmes to which the Government have committed of improving our highways, railways and capacity across our transport network can be delivered within the profile of spending that has been allowed by this Government. I am much less confident that that would be the case if the Conservative party were elected and imposed serious cuts on our transport network, including by failing to commit to Crossrail.

Ann Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend give a brief update on a matter of concern to me and many others regarding the rumour about the renegotiation of the franchise on the east coast main line with National Express?

Geoff Hoon: There will be no renegotiation of franchises.

Nicholas Winterton: My constituent Jessica Berry attended the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign launch of its Trailblazers report. What more can the Government do to assist handicapped people, in particular young people, to access trains and buses, and to ensure that when they have accessed them they can get off where they want to, rather than sometimes having to struggle in order to reach their destination?

Paul Clark: We take seriously, obviously, the accessibility of public transport for all concerned, in particular for those with disabilities. That is why there are end dates for all buses to be Disability Discrimination Act compliant by a rolling programme of 2015-16, and that is the case for railway stock as well. Programmes such as access for all, which allow people to move on to station platforms and across from one platform to another, are equally important. Those are the programmes in which the Government are investing money to ensure that we make life much simpler for those with disabilities.

WOMEN AND EQUALITY

The Minister for Women and Equality was asked—

Flexible Working Arrangements

Sharon Hodgson: What recent discussions she has had with Ministerial colleagues on awareness among parents and carers of disabled children and adults of their right to request flexible working arrangements.

Harriet Harman: We have been running a campaign since April to increase awareness among parents and carers of the right to request flexible working. This media campaign has been focused on regional radio, newspapers, parenting and lifestyle magazines and websites. We will evaluate the campaign and assess awareness in the light of its results.

Sharon Hodgson: Flexible working is both family friendly and business friendly. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that those requests should always fall on open ears?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It helps families if parents of young children, or family members who care for an elderly or disabled relative, can continue to go out to work and choose their working hours, or the days of the week on which they work, to suit their caring responsibilities. She is right that it is important that employers respond positively to such requests when they are made.
	I can tell my hon. Friend and the House that when such requests are made, employers respond positively to them. I have just looked at the figures that relate to her question. For people who care for an elderly or disabled relative, 96 per cent. of requests for flexible working are agreed. For working parents with young children, 95 per cent. of requests for flexible working are agreed. The problem is that people do not make the request because they do not know their rights. Only 10 per cent. of carers knew they had the right to flexible working. That is why most of them do not make a request. Only 19 per cent. of parents with children under six know that they have the right. The problem is not employers complying; it is that people do not know they have the right, so they do not ask.

George Young: While welcoming the campaign that the right hon. and learned Lady mentioned, and the very positive response from employers, is it not the case that an enlightened employer will not only have to agree to his statutory obligations, but within the flexible working time he has agreed, he will need to be additionally flexible because, unpredictably, those people will need to leave within the flexible hours that have been agreed? Employers will need to go beyond their statutory responsibilities if they are to give the entitlement referred to in the question.

Harriet Harman: That is true. However, once employers and managers move from a strict "everyone working nine to five, five days a week" system and start responding to such requests, they find it much easier to comply with them that they thought, and that they can be even more accommodating than the law requires them to be.
	Over the next two decades the number of people over 85 is expected to double, and the care given to them by their families will be every bit as important as—if not more important than—the care provided by social services departments and health authorities. We do not want loads of people to have to give up their work because they are providing that important family care, so the question of their ability to work and employers' ability to respond flexibly is a huge one for the future.

Lindsay Hoyle: My right hon. and learned Friend knows as well as I do that we owe a big debt to carers, who lift the burden from the NHS and social services. She has rightly drawn attention to the number of carers who are not aware of their rights. How can we help them to become aware of those rights, and also help employers through difficult times so that they do not punish carers?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend has raised many times in the House the question of what happens if people are made to work short time. There are a number of reasons why working practices are changing. According to recent research I have seen, most people who work part time—the majority of whom are women—would prefer to work full time. The position has changed. We have tended to assume in the past that women work part time because that suits them and their family responsibilities, but now most part-time work is involuntary: people would work full time if they could. Increasingly, employers are trying to make people work part time or short time in order to manage until the economy picks up. In that context, awareness of the availability of tax credits is essential. It is also essential for employers to know that they can defer payment of tax to help them with their cash flow.

Gender Reassignment (Equality Bill)

Hugh Bayley: Whether the protected characteristic of gender reassignment proposed in the Equality Bill will protect transgendered people who choose not to seek medical advice or to change their physiological attributes.

Vera Baird: Yes, the Bill provides an amended definition of gender reassignment which removes the reference to a person's being under medical supervision that exists in the current anti-discrimination law. In the Bill, the protected characteristic of gender reassignment covers transsexual people who take steps to enable them to live permanently in the opposite gender to the one assigned to them at birth. There is no requirement for them to seek medical advice or undergo any surgery or other medical intervention.

Hugh Bayley: Some transgendered people seek gender reassignment while others do not, but they all face a potential risk of discrimination at work or elsewhere. The Bill makes clear that protection is given to transsexuals, but do the Government intend all transgendered people, including those who do not seek gender reassignment, to be protected?

Patrick Cormack: God preserve us!

Hugh Bayley: You do not need preservation.

Vera Baird: Once again, the Tory party has shown how up to date and understanding it is.
	One way or another, my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) has made a good point. We will find that most people in that position are protected. As well as the protection I have already described, there is protection by association or by perception, which applies to gender reassignment as well and should cover the people to whom my hon. Friend has referred. I think that the cover is reasonably comprehensive.

Lynne Featherstone: Is the Minister aware that transsexuals face an NHS lottery? There are heavy restrictions in, for instance, Oxfordshire, where they can only get part of what they need done. That is akin to the position in the 1960s, when people were forced to go to Morocco or the Netherlands for surgery. Does the Minister agree that that is an appalling situation for them to find themselves in, and will she commit herself to lobbying the Secretary of State for Health to ensure that people who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria need not face such dreadful circumstances?

Vera Baird: As the hon. Lady says, that is really a matter for the Department of Health. However, the Equality Bill places a duty on all public sector bodies to ensure that they end discrimination and promote the well-being of all the protected strands. That will be a useful weapon, and will help to ensure that services are spread more evenly across the country.

Cohabitation Bill

Mary Creagh: If she will make an assessment of the merits of the provisions in the Cohabitation Bill [ Lords].

Maria Eagle: I am happy to do so, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this to my attention. The intention behind the Bill is to provide financial obligations to support children on the breakdown of cohabiting relationships. The Government have considered the financial recommendations of the Law Commission's 2007 report and are considering further what the best approach is for England and Wales.

Mary Creagh: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. She will be aware that there are more than 2 million cohabiting couples in the UK, and in 2006 a fifth of all children were born to people in a cohabiting relationship. Does she agree that the part of the Bill that states that on the breakdown of a cohabiting relationship, a judge should be able to decide what is a fair outcome and allocate support to the ex-partner for up to three years in order to seek child care and enable that person to get back into work, provides useful measures? The Government could use them to ensure that we prevent women and their children—it is usually women—from falling into homelessness and poverty when a cohabiting relationship breaks down.

Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend is again asking me to assess the merits of the Bill's provisions, and I have said that I will do so; I will certainly have a look. The Law Commission proposals were about addressing hardship. There is legislation in Scotland—the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006—which looks more at compensating parties for losses incurred as a result of cohabitation. There are many different approaches to trying to deal with this problem. The Government are considering the matter but have not yet come to a final decision on the best way forward for England and Wales. I am, however, happy to discuss this matter further with my hon. Friend.

Anne McIntosh: As you will know, Mr. Speaker, common law in Scotland has always recognised a man and woman living together as having a common-law marriage. Will the Minister look carefully at the Scottish situation to see what we in England and Wales can learn from it?

Maria Eagle: Indeed, we will. One reason why we have not yet come to a final conclusion in assessing the different approaches to what we accept is an important issue is that the Scottish legislation came into force in 2006 and there is ongoing research on its impact; it will be useful to have some of the research's conclusions before coming to a final decision on the best way forward. The hon. Lady is right to raise the issue of the myths associated with what is often known as common-law marriage, which, of course, does not carry any rights at all beyond the ordinary property rights and rights within law. While we are coming to a conclusion about whether legislation is appropriate in this respect, it is important that we continue to provide advice to cohabiting couples—there are 2.3 million such couples in the UK—about what the current rights are, and, perhaps more importantly, are not.

Public Sector Employment

Julie Morgan: What plans she has to increase the number of women employed in senior positions in the public sector.

Maria Eagle: We have made some progress in increasing the number of women in key senior public sector positions; for example, women now fill 32 per cent. of senior civil service posts and 20 per cent. of local authority chief executive posts. Those are increases of 17 per cent. and 10 per cent. respectively compared with the situation in 1997, but there is still a lot more work to do. The Equality Bill will introduce positive action provisions allowing public authorities, as employers, to address this under-representation at senior levels if they choose to do so.

Julie Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for that response and in particular for her reference to the civil service, but is she aware that over the last three years there has actually been a decline in the number of women appointed to the most senior positions in the civil service? In 2007-08, 24 per cent. of the top 105 senior appointments were filled by women; that was down on the year before, which was down on the previous year. Therefore, there appears to be a decline in the very top civil service positions. What can we do about that?

Maria Eagle: If we look across a number of public sector organisations—of course, the position is worse in the private sector—we see a general pattern of advance, then stalling and now a slight slipping back. It is therefore clear that we need to do more and take further steps to improve the situation. May I also just emphasise that this is not all about arithmetical equality, but about using properly the talent of all our people in the top jobs in this country? It is not, therefore, about trying to get the numbers right; it is about trying to facilitate proper opportunities for talented people. We need to persuade as well as enable, and lead by example as well as exhort, and that is what we seek to do.

Peter Bone: I am very encouraged by what the Minister says. Does she agree that, where there is a male in a top job and a talented female deputy has been in place for a considerable time, done a very good job and has stood in, at times, for the boss, she should automatically get the next job? Can the Minister think of anyone close to her to whom that might apply?

Maria Eagle: I think I know what the hon. Gentleman is getting at, and I do not wish to get drawn into the individual circumstances in particular workplaces—he is inviting me to walk down a very difficult path. We need to do better overall in order to use the talents of all our people, including the women.

Theresa May: First, Mr. Speaker, may I apologise unreservedly to both you and the whole House for having been a little late in arriving for women and equality questions?
	In some departments there is very much a glass ceiling for women, but another issue that women face in state institutions and departments is the gender pay gap. In some public sector institutions men are being paid 25 per cent. more than women, the national average being 17 per cent. The Equality Bill specifically does not include the public sector in the provisions the Government are proposing on gender pay audits. The Minister for Women and Equality is very keen to accuse the private sector of problems regarding the gender pay gap, but what are the Government proposing to do to end the gap in the public sector?

Maria Eagle: I am glad that the right hon. Lady is, like Labour Members, concerned about the gender pay gap. The Equality Bill will put an obligation on the public sector, and a more onerous obligation where there are 150 or more employees, to produce more information than we will be asking the private sector to produce. The public sector will therefore be leading by example, and it is important that we ensure that we do. Perhaps she was a couple of minutes late into the Chamber because she was reading the Bill—the provision is in there. We will make sure that we place this obligation on the public sector. May I remind the House that the public sector generally does better than the private sector? However, having transparency—seeing what the position is in a meaningful way—is the real way, as we have all discovered over the past couple of weeks, to find out what is going on.

Business of the House

Alan Duncan: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the forthcoming parliamentary business?

Harriet Harman: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 18 May—Opposition Day [11th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate entitled "Crisis in Funding Further Education and Training", followed by a debate on Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust. Both debates will arise on an Opposition motion.
	Tuesday 19 May—Remaining stages of the Policing and Crime Bill.
	Wednesday 20 May—Motion relating to the appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor General, followed by a motion relating to National Policy Statements, followed by a motion relating to the Communications (Television Licensing) (Amendment) Regulations 2009.
	Thursday 21 May—Motion on the Whitsun recess Adjournment.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 1 June will include:
	Monday 1 June—Second Reading of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [ Lords].
	Tuesday 2 June—Second Reading of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [ Lords].
	Wednesday 3 June—General debate: subject to be announced; the Chairman of Ways and Means will then name opposed private business for consideration.
	Thursday 4 June—Topical debate: subject to be announced, followed by a general debate on defence in the world.

Alan Duncan: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the forthcoming business. May I raise again the need for a statement on the case of the 80 or more Chinese children who have disappeared from a London care centre? We were promised a report to the House two weeks ago, since when we have heard nothing. There are some things in life that really are important, and this is one of them. What will the world say about our priorities if we fail to raise in this House this scandalous, shocking and vile trade in children that is going on under our noses? The Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee has asserted that Chinese children who arrive alone at a British airport are taken into local authority care and two thirds of them vanish within a week. To put it into plain English, for God's sake what is going on? Victorian campaigners stamped out child prostitution and now, in the twenty-first century, it seems to be back.
	I know that the whole House will have welcomed your statement, Mr. Speaker, and the meeting you had yesterday on mass protests in Parliament square, which often block the road and the gates to Parliament. It is my understanding that the meeting focused on the immediate disruption that has been caused by the recent demonstration by Tamils, but there is a broader issue, because the whole area is deteriorating into a permanent shambles. Legitimate protest is fine and important, but permanently disruptive protest is not. The Leader of the House has so far failed to take a lead on this. Now that you have taken action, Mr. Speaker, may I ask her when we will get a statement and a plan of action on how to address this problem?
	May I also ask the Leader of the House for a clear plan of action on the two inquiries that need to be conducted into the arrest of an hon. Member and the protection of parliamentary confidences? Members are becoming somewhat exasperated by her silence. She did promise to get back to the House, but so far she has not done so. This issue will not go away. What is stopping her from referring this issue to the Committee on Standards and Privileges in a motion, so that we can take time to reflect on the lessons that need to be learned? May I have a firm commitment today from her to take conclusive action before we rise for the Whitsun recess?
	May we also have a debate on the announcement about the police made by the Prime Minister earlier this week? This was his first serious speech on crime since he became Prime Minister almost two years ago. One of his suggestions was that people who felt unsafe should be escorted home by police, but we now learn that the chairman of the Police Federation wrote to the Home Secretary to seek her clarification on how many times she wants the police to arrest, charge and convict the same people before the Government do anything about it. How on earth does the Prime Minister think the police will have time to tuck people up in bed if the Government are so badly mishandling persistent offenders?
	May I again request a debate on the indignity of mixed-sex wards? Yesterday it was revealed that patients in many of London's hospitals were still being forced to sleep on such wards. I have raised this issue with the Leader of the House before and she said that "progress was being made". What kind of progress is it if top hospitals in the capital are failing to provide adequate care? The Leader of the House is a London MP and the Minister for Women and Equality, so may I ask what she intends to do about the issue?
	Finally, may I once again—as I have done almost every week for months—request and demand a statement from the Government on how they will properly compensate the deprived policyholders of Equitable Life?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman raises the question of the protection of children and their suspected trafficking into this country. This issue was raised in Prime Minister's questions yesterday and the previous Wednesday. This is a matter of serious concern and we need to be sure that the local authorities responsible, the immigration authorities and the police work together to ensure that children who have travelled to this country on their own, and who are vulnerable thousands of miles away from their families, are properly protected. I understand the Home Affairs Committee is having a seminar on this issue in Portcullis House today and we look forward to seeing its report.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about mass protests in Parliament square. He will know that you have made a statement on the subject this week, Mr. Speaker, and that you have also held a meeting this week involving all the organisations that have operational responsibility for allowing the right to protest and ensuring that members of the public and Members of Parliament can get to and from the House of Commons. Obviously, this subject will form part of the discussions about the governance of Britain, including those on the Constitutional Renewal Bill.
	As I have told the hon. Gentleman on previous occasions, the House agreed that there would be a Speaker's Committee to consider parliamentary privilege. I do not think it is ever worth having two Committees when one can do the job. I am sure the whole House hopes that the discussion about the number of members for the Speaker's Committee and about how we can ensure it gets on with its work to see whether it can satisfy all Members' questions will be resolved as soon as possible.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Prime Minister's speech on the police. I remind him that crime in this country across the board has fallen over the past 10 years. We should pay tribute not only to the work that has gone on in this House through legislation to give more powers to the police, but to the work that the police have done, working closely with local communities, to ensure that crime falls and fewer people become victims of crime. There has been a great deal of progress over the past 10 years, but the hon. Gentleman is of course right to say that a problem remains, particularly with persistent offenders. That has been the focus of Home Office concern, and he or other hon. Members can raise that point in Home Office questions next week.
	I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the issue of mixed-sex wards is overdue for further action, and there will be further action.

Martin Salter: Can the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the use— [ Interruption. ]

Harriet Harman: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I call Martin Salter.

Martin Salter: Could the Leader of the House find time— [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Sorry, I thought that the right hon. and learned Lady had finished.

Harriet Harman: I had, but I unfinished because I remembered that the shadow Leader of the House had asked about Equitable Life. Shall I give my answer in response to another question or should I just carry on?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. and learned Lady should not draw breath—that is what happened, and I called someone else. Please answer, and then I will call Mr. Salter.

Harriet Harman: I know that this answer will be disappointing and annoying for many hon. Members who, like all of us, are very concerned about those people who lost out because of the mismanagement by Equitable Life over a number of years and because that mismanagement was not addressed properly by the authorities with responsibility for regulating Equitable Life. That is why, following the ombudsman's serious, weighty and important report, which took four years to compile, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury came to the House to make an oral statement. She said that even though no legal obligation to compensate has been ordered by the court—that is, despite the fact that it is clear that there is no legal obligation, and that was the subject of a court case—

Patrick Cormack: There is a moral obligation.

Harriet Harman: A legal obligation and a moral obligation are different. I am simply stating the position in relation to a legal obligation. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that, notwithstanding the fact that there was no legal obligation, the Government apologised for the regulatory failures and believed that there should be financial recompense for those who had lost out. The question is how we establish a scheme to pay out to those many people who have lost out. Sir John Chadwick, who is a High Court judge, is establishing that scheme. He will shortly produce an interim report on how it will be framed, and at that point the matter will be brought back to the House for Members' information.

Mr. Speaker: Martin Salter.

Martin Salter: rose—

Hon. Members: Not again!

Martin Salter: This had better be good! Thank you for calling me, Mr. Speaker, for the third time and I hope for many more. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the use of the £35 million Short money that the Opposition have received since 1997? That debate should be seen in the light of yesterday's posturing by the Leader of the Opposition about the MPs' communications allowance, which he and 90 per cent. of all Conservative MPs have claimed but now want abolished.

Harriet Harman: Short money is public money that goes to the Opposition to help them to do their work and develop policy. That is important. We should acknowledge that public money underpins the political system in respect of the Opposition as well as the Government, but we must also recognise the role of the communications allowance. We need to be in communication with our constituents and to give them information about issues of concern to them. For example, we should tell them what help is available for those who lose their jobs and are worried about losing their homes. We should give them information about the mortgage protection schemes. We should give information to small businesses in our constituencies and tell them about the possibility of deferring taxes. It is not permissible to use the communications allowance to pass on party political messages, but I hope all hon. Members will use their allowance to give constituents the information they need. I support that, and I agree with my hon. Friend.

David Heath: I am told that today is national dance like a chicken day, which may be apposite for activities in the House over the past week. While we have been obsessing—necessarily—about what has emerged in  The Daily Telegraph, the world has continued: people have been losing their jobs, businesses have been closing, and people have lost their homes. We need to concentrate on that as well.
	I understood the Leader of the House to have given a commitment a few months ago that each week there would be a debate or a Question Time on the economy. I cannot see either in next week's business or in the provisional business for the week after the recess. May I suggest that we might use one of the general debates in those weeks for a debate on unemployment? There are now 2.2 million people in this country who are unemployed, and we could discuss what we can do to address that.
	I and various other hon. Members from all parties last week pointed out to the Leader of the House that only one day had been provided for the Report and remaining stages of the Policing and Crime Bill. That is clearly inadequate, and I hoped that the complaints made from all parts of the House would be recognised. We still have only one day for a Bill that is exceedingly complex, and it is almost certain that we will not reach key sections. Even at this late stage, will she look again at the timetabling of the Bill?
	May we have a debate on class sizes? Departmental statistics were supposed to be released on 7 May, but they were unaccountably delayed for a week until yesterday—perhaps because they show that 29,200 children between the ages of five and seven are now taught in classes of more than 30, despite the Government's absolute pledge to do away with all classes of that size. How can that be? May we have a debate on the matter?
	May we also have a debate on the state of our nation's roads? Anyone who drives around Somerset, Wiltshire and neighbouring counties will know that the roads have deteriorated very badly. They are full of potholes and there is a massive problem with the backlog of road maintenance—it is estimated that the average shortfall for each authority across the country is £6 million. The state of the roads causes danger and discomfort, especially to cyclists—I can vouch for that—and many people are concerned that money is being spent on compensation for road accident victims rather than on doing something about the cause of those accidents. May we therefore have a debate on the state of the roads?
	Lastly, a while ago I caused some grief to the right hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) when he was the Minister dealing with the Bill that became the Licensing Act 2003. He incurred the wrath of folk singers in Somerset, including the redoubtable Wurzels, when he set out his plans for live music. The number of venues for live music, and the number of pubs and bars that provide live music, has declined, as we predicted. The Licensing Act has brought some advantages, but it has also brought about a dire state in the provision of live music in pubs, and many difficulties for voluntary bodies such as village halls. May we have a debate on the operation of the Act, so that we can explore how we can improve the situation and revitalise the music industry in this country?

Harriet Harman: In respect of the Policing and Crime Bill, in business questions last Thursday, I undertook to review the decision that it should have just one day on Report following Committee, as is usual. I have done that and looked again at the matter, because I know that there were concerns about four aspects: the definition of gangs; the use of DNA; control for gain in respect of prostitution, and its definition; and lap dancing and controls on lap-dancing clubs. Those are very important issues; I do not demur from that at all. However, the provisions on control for gain and lap dancing were already in the Bill when it was brought before the House on Second Reading. The Government are bringing forward amendments as concessions on issues raised in Committee.
	The provisions on gangs and DNA were new; they were brought into the Bill in Committee, and therefore were not considered by the House on Second Reading. Concessions were agreed, so it is important that on Report we focus on those issues. When it comes to a Bill getting on to the statute book, we must take account not only of business in this House but proceedings in the other House. We have to make sure that we provide time so that we can consider not only our views but Lords amendments. Looking at the business of the House ahead of us, I have not seen a possibility of making a second day available. If it were possible to do so, I would have done it, but it was for me to make a judgment. I know that there were discussions among the parties, that there was not satisfaction on the issue, and that there have been concerns about it, but I am afraid I could not really offer any assistance on that, although I tried.
	We made it a priority when we came into government to reduce class sizes, particularly in primary schools. Part of the reason for our big investment in education, year after year, is to keep class sizes down, so that each child can have more individual attention. That is one of the reasons why, despite the fact that there is a global economic recession, we are this year increasing investment in education by 4.3 per cent. That is in stark contrast to the cuts proposed by the Opposition, which would affect important things such as class sizes.
	The third point raised by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) was about the importance of the House being able to discuss and debate and hold Ministers to account on what is being done to protect businesses, jobs and people's homes. I did say that the House would have an opportunity to discuss those issues more or less every week—and it has had that opportunity in the past—because that is the No. 1 priority. This week, we have had two days of discussion on the Finance Bill. On Tuesday, debate on the Bill went on until nearly 2 o'clock in the morning, and last night I think that it went on until about 10 o'clock. I would say that that was an opportunity to debate issues that affect the economy, so the House has had those— [Interruption.] If Opposition Members are saying that debate on the Finance Bill does not count as debate on the economy, and they want an additional opportunity to discuss the issue, I will think about making it the subject of a topical debate.
	The hon. Gentleman also spoke about people killed or injured in road accidents. He could more properly have put that question to the team of Transport Ministers, who were answering questions just before business questions. He challenged the Government on a reduction in the number of venues available for live music as a result of the licensing regime. The fact is that there was an 8 per cent. increase in premises licensed with live music authorisation between March 2007 and March 2008, so if his proposition—

David Heath: The number of licences has increased, but not the number of venues.

Harriet Harman: Well, most people are concerned about two things. They are concerned about whether the places that want to provide music can get a licence to do so, and the answer to that point is that more people are getting licences. They are also concerned about ensuring that when those clubs or pubs have licences, all the people who are having a great time there do not deafen neighbours, and that the neighbours do not suffer a grim time as a result. The licensing regime is important, and more premises are getting a licence, so everything is absolutely fine, contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said.
	The hon. Gentleman also made a point about expenses; I suppose it was really a throw-away remark, but I know that he regards it as a very serious issue, as all hon. Members do. I do not think that anyone in any part of the House is in any doubt at all about the anger and outrage that there is on the subject. I think we all want to put things right quickly, because we all want to restore trust and confidence in Parliament. We are all united in our belief in the importance of Parliament to our democracy. This is a defining moment, and it is a huge challenge for all of us. The public who elected us, and whom we represent, expect us to sort it out. As Leader of the House, I want to say—on behalf, I hope, of the whole House—"We get it. We're going to sort it out." That goes for all of us. We are aware of the scale of anger and outrage. We all believe that the issue needs to be sorted out, and we will work together urgently to do exactly that.

Anne McGuire: Earlier this morning, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston and I received a report from the Dystonia Society, highlighting the impact of that painful condition on the lives of the 40,000 or so people across the United Kingdom who suffer from it. I wonder whether my right hon. and learned Friend could find some parliamentary time for a debate in the House to highlight that little-known condition.

Harriet Harman: My right hon. Friend has brought the issue to my attention and that of the House through her question. I will bring it to the attention of Health Ministers. Perhaps she should seek an Adjournment debate, or a debate in Westminster Hall, on the subject; I am sure that other hon. Members would want to participate.

Patrick Cormack: May I return to the subject of Equitable Life? Does the right hon. and learned Lady accept that the reports—and they are in the plural—from the ombudsman include criticism of the Government of an unprecedented severity? It is crucial that we debate the issue very soon. We are told this week that an average of 15 Equitable Life victims die each day; that is more than 100 a week. We must debate the matter, and the Government must come up with their package. As I said earlier, the Government have a moral obligation, whatever their legal obligation, and the House expects the Government to fulfil that obligation.

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the situation in respect of Equitable Life is unprecedented. It is unprecedented in the number of people affected. It is unprecedented in the amount of money involved; a lot of people have lost considerable amounts. It is unprecedented in that it affects not only the well-off but people on very modest incomes. It is also unprecedented in respect of its complexity. Those are the issues that we are determined to address. The Government do not seek to stand on their legal obligation, and we do not need to have our moral obligation explained to us. We are concerned about the matter. We are all concerned about the people who have lost out, and we will take action to make sure that the issue is addressed. I understand that on 19 May there will be a Westminster Hall debate on it.

Ann Cryer: Will my right hon. and learned Friend find time for an early debate on the future of the east coast main line franchise? There are rumours regarding the financial viability of the main operator. I have been given an assurance by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport that there will be no renegotiation, but as a railway enthusiast who uses that line at least twice a week, I feel that the anxieties linger on.

Harriet Harman: I know from the representations of a number of hon. Members representing constituents all along the east coast main line that this is an important issue. I do not know whether the matter was raised during Transport questions as I was not present throughout, but as it affects a number of hon. Members, an Adjournment debate might be appropriate.

Julian Lewis: May we have a debate in Government time entitled "The fallacy of atheism"? I defy any right hon. or hon. Members to refuse to believe in the existence of God having read today's edition of  The Argus in which the most judgmental and sanctimonious Member of the House admits to having pocketed between £20,000 and £30,000 by paying rent to himself for a constituency office in his own home.

Harriet Harman: I have much admiration and respect for the hon. Gentleman, who has taken a considerable battering at the hands of the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), but I urge him to resist the temptation to hit back, because we will make no progress. The public are angry and outraged. That is not just what I think; we all know that to be the case. As grieved as we might be that we have been subjected to accusations by other Members, that gives us no prospect of a way forward. The only way forward is to say to the public loud and clear, "We understand the anger. We understand the outrage. We had already taken some steps to improve the situation and we will take further steps to do so." We must do that to ensure that the public can once again have confidence not just in one political party or another, but in all parts of the House.

Sally Keeble: Will my right hon. and learned Friend, who expressed her views and gave voice to the House on the issue of the need to clean up the expenses system, urge the House authorities to provide Members on request with an electronic copy of our receipts and claims, with full access rights—not just a read-only copy—so that we can make the redactions that are indicated but not made on the electronic copy that we have? We can then put them on our websites or do what we want with them. Please will she ensure that that happens so that we have proper access to our own data and can manage it as we choose? [Official Report, 19 May 2009, Vol. 492, c. 17MC.]

Harriet Harman: Many hon. Members have been asked by their local newspapers, which are read by the constituents who elected them, to put details of their own claims and the payments received in the public domain so that the local newspaper can report them. Many hon. Members want to do that because, having been elected by their constituents, they feel that their constituents are entitled to know where their Member of Parliament stands amidst all of this. The difficulty is that the information on the claims and payments made that we have been given by the House authorities in electronic form cannot be given to local newspapers because it includes all sorts of information whose release would breach the freedom of information laws. For example, if I gave out the information about my expenses to the  South London Press, which I want to do without having to wait for the House authorities to do so, I would be putting in the public domain the bank statements of my assistant, who is not at all keen that I should do that. I understand why, and it would be breaking the law.
	This morning I asked the Clerk of the House if we could have not only a read-only copy but one that we could pass on to our local paper with the genuinely personal bits crossed out, and he is discussing that with the House authorities. That is not the situation at the moment and hon. Members will just have to tell their local newspapers that they can either come in and read the hard copies, with the personal parts, such as bank account details, crossed out, or simply wait for the House of Commons to enable us to provide an electronic copy. All local newspapers should recognise that although many hon. Members would not feel obliged to respond to national newspapers, they do feel accountable to their local constituents. The local newspapers report to the local constituents and Members want to be accountable to them.

Evan Harris: In her reply the Leader of the House to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on the Policing and Crime Bill, the Leader of the House laid down an astonishing remarkable new doctrine that the Government will decide which parts of Bills the House scrutinises—she says DNA, gangs, prostitution and lap dancing—and that it will be up to the Government to decide that we do not look at the 12 clauses on police reform, the 14 clauses on extradition, the six clauses on alcohol, the 16 clauses on proceeds of crime and other matters. There are also 41 miscellaneous clauses. Is it now the case that the Government decide that we will be allowed to scrutinise some bits on the Floor of House and some that we will not? Furthermore, has she any plans to negotiate with Front and Back Benchers over where the knives go in the limited time that we will now have to non-scrutinise this important piece of legislation?

Harriet Harman: There will be consultation, as there ought to be, on the programme motion and the allocation of time for different parts of the Bill. In my comments earlier, I was trying to respond to the points that the hon. Gentleman raised in the House last week—gangs, DNA, control for gain of prostitution, lap dancing, and, additionally, alcohol. I in no way meant that those were the only issues that the House would want to debate. I was just reflecting and cognising that those were important issues that he raised last time, but certainly other issues are also important. We will have as much discussion as we can and try, if possible, to reach agreement on the allocation of time in the full day's debate on Report. I try to ensure that no statement or any other business cuts into that time.

Rosie Cooper: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider a debate on the confidentiality of Members' correspondence, on which we have had a number of discussions in the past and on which Mr. Speaker has ruled? In one of two recent incidents a firm that was supplying a service that the county council was involved in was in some difficulty, and I wrote expressing my worries and asking what would be done to replace that service should it collapse. I was shocked to find that my correspondence and the reply was circulated to county councillors at will, breaching confidentiality. Furthermore, when a councillor raised an issue, an officer told him that I had previously written and, I am told, allowed him to see my correspondence and the response. This is outrageous. My confidentiality needs to be respected, but more importantly, so does that of my constituents.

Harriet Harman: When Members of Parliament, who are democratically elected, deal with another public authority that is publicly accountable, such as a council, there needs to be a proper level of trust and respect. This is not a question of the nitty-gritty of the rules, but of those councils applying common sense and thinking things through. My hon. Friend raises an important point, which Mr. Speaker has addressed in the past, and I will consider whether any further action needs to be taken.

Michael Penning: May we have a debate on the crisis in NHS dentistry? Some 1.2 million people, according to Government figures, do not have access to a dentist. The Government have accepted that there is a problem, which is why they are holding an inquiry, but could we have a debate on the matter to find out why not one single Minister in the Department of Health, including the Secretary of State, has visited a dentistry in the past 12 months? How can they know what is going on in the front line of dentistry if they have never visited a surgery?

Harriet Harman: One reason why we have determined to protect the health budget is that we know that although progress has been made, there is still more to do. That is why there will be an extra 5.5 per cent. in the health service budget this year, some of which will be available for continued improvements in dentistry. The policy of the hon. Gentleman's party's would be to make cuts and to say, "We can't afford this because of the recession." I cannot believe that no Minister has visited a dental surgery other than in a personal capacity— [ Interruption. ] The hon. Gentleman is holding up a parliamentary answer, which may be conclusive, in which case I will say no more.

Jim Sheridan: May we have a debate in the House on the importance of manufacturing to this country? Unite, the union, has organised for this Saturday a major march and rally in Birmingham to highlight that very point about manufacturing. All right hon. and hon. Members are welcome. Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that whatever else is going on, the Government will remain committed to helping the manufacturing industry through these difficult times?

Harriet Harman: I am aware of that important demonstration in support of manufacturing in Birmingham this week. It was organised by the unions, but it will involve employers from a range of organisations, not only from Birmingham, but from across the west midlands. The question of support for manufacturing was raised when the Cabinet met in Birmingham, Glasgow, Liverpool and Newcastle. The issue is raised constantly, as it is in questions to the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.

Peter Lilley: Will the Leader of the House tell us when we are finally going to have an opportunity to debate the revised assessment of the costs and benefits of the Climate Change Act 2008, which was slipped out for the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change without a statement, as were his responses to my subsequent questions, even though it shows that the costs, at some £400 billion, will be about twice as high as we were told they would be when the measure was debated? That means that it will cost every household in the country about £20,000.
	Simultaneously, the Secretary of State admitted that his predecessor had overlooked nearly £1 trillion of benefits. Those are the largest financial errors ever made by a Minister. When will we have the opportunity to debate them? They cast doubt on the whole climate change alarmism thesis. Every time the theory contradicts the facts and the figures, they simply change the figures.

Harriet Harman: I will raise the matter with the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and ask him to write to the right hon. Gentleman.

Peter Lilley: I am asking for a debate.

Harriet Harman: The right hon. Gentleman is calling for a debate, and I will consider whether the matter should be the subject of a topical debate.

Julie Morgan: When can we have a debate on the UK Border Agency's treatment of urgent cases? My constituent, Dr. Anjali Shetty, who is a consultant microbiologist working in south Wales, has been trying desperately to get indefinite leave to remain and to have her passport returned from the agency. Her mother, who is very ill in India, has taken a turn for the worse, and Dr. Shetty needs urgently to return. She was told yesterday by the agency not to make any travel arrangements and that it would deal with the matter as quickly as possible. How can we send a message to the agency that it is dealing with tragic human situations, not just bits of paper? What can hon. Members do to ensure that such cases are dealt with urgently?

Harriet Harman: I will bring it to the attention of the Home Office Minister responsible for immigration that my hon. Friend has raised the issue of Dr. Anjali Shetty in the House. My hon. Friend could seek a meeting with immigration Ministers, but I also remind her that Home Office questions on Monday might give her an opportunity to raise the matter with them.

Alan Reid: Last week, the Leader of the House rejected a request by me and other hon. Members for a debate and a vote on Equitable Life, and this week she has rejected hon. Members' entirely legitimate calls for more time to debate the Policing and Crime Bill. If there is not enough time in the current Session for those important debates, why can we not add an extra week to the Session at the end of July?

Harriet Harman: With respect, the hon. Gentleman has mixed up two issues that are not the same. I have not rejected anybody's concerns about Equitable Life. I explained the process: as soon as John Chadwick's interim report is ready, it will be brought to the House. I am not rejecting anybody's concerns; indeed, I share those concerns—we feel strongly about the matter and will bring it back to the House.
	I have also not rejected the concerns that were raised by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and others about the Policing and Crime Bill. It is not so much an issue of this House. The issue is how we make sure that the Bill completes its passage through this House, but also the House of Lords, and that we have an opportunity to deal with Lords amendments. It is not just a question of when we are in recess but what happens when the Bill goes from this House to the House of Lords and returns in time so that we can consider Lords amendments.

Barry Gardiner: Many workers up and down the country are this week celebrating the 10th anniversary of the national minimum wage. Does my right hon. and learned Friend share the view of many hon. Members across the House that a Conservative Member's attempt to introduce a Bill that would enable workers to be paid less than the minimum wage is an absolute contempt?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend illustrates well that we are united on the question of the importance of democracy precisely because there are choices to make and differences in political views and between parties. As he said, one of the most stark differences is our strong belief that there should be a minimum wage by law. The suggestion from Conservative Members, which appears in the private Member's Bill that will be debated tomorrow, that employers should simply be able to opt out would blow a hole in the national minimum wage.

Nicholas Winterton: The Leader of the House just talked about of democracy. In support of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, who requested a second day to debate a Bill, does she accept that the only opportunity that a Member has to participate in the passage of a Bill, if they are not called on Second Reading or if they are not appointed to the Public Bill Committee, is on Report and at remaining stages? Does she agree that Members who want to participate should be enabled to do so, and that the tight programming of Report and remaining stages of big and important Bills is unnecessary and damaging to the authority of the House in scrutinising legislation?

Harriet Harman: I have said that we will have discussions to make sure that we can try to reach agreement on programming so that hon. Members are able to debate all the important parts of the Bill. I have also said that I will try to ensure that there is no oral statement on that day so that we do not lose an hour.

Kelvin Hopkins: My right hon. and learned Friend will recall that the Select Committee on Public Administration published its report on lobbying in the first week of January. The report, which called for a statutory register of lobbyists, was followed by an early-day motion from my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), who is a fellow member of that Committee, calling for urgent legislation. The motion has been signed by 162 hon. Members.
	It is customary for the Government to respond to such reports within two months. The response was deferred until after Easter, but it is now well after that time. Will my right hon. and learned Friend ask her colleagues in the Cabinet Office to respond and to come with forward with at least a reply and, I hope, legislation, as soon as possible? May I also suggest that such legislation would help to raise public esteem for Parliament once again?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend might take the opportunity to raise that matter directly with Ministers at Cabinet Office Questions on Monday. He will know that questions that touched on the subject of lobbying were the subject of various parts of the draft constitutional renewal Bill, which was scrutinised by a Committee of both Houses.

Ann Winterton: A debate on defence in the world is always to be welcomed, but may I ask the Leader of the House to reconsider the date on which she proposes to hold the next one, which is the date of the local and European elections? That could be perceived as lowering the priority of defence, bearing in mind that in the past week, when both politicians and the media have been over-indulging in navel gazing, four young men have lost their lives in Afghanistan and the lives of their families and friends have been changed for ever. Can we get our priorities right?

Harriet Harman: Absolutely no disrespect or lack of priority is indicated by our scheduling the defence debate on that day. The subject is one on which there is so much agreement in the House, albeit a keen determination to debate it, that it will not divide the House. If elections are taking place—European elections and council elections are being held on that day—the usual practice is not to put on whipped business or business that will result in a vote. The defence debate is a general debate—such debates are keenly supported by hon. Members—and there are not such divisions that it will end in a vote. That is the explanation, although I have some sympathy with what the hon. Lady says.

Tony Baldry: A delegation of the Chinese National People's Congress is visiting the House this week, and it would be good if the House had the ability to express concern about the fact that, yesterday, Aung San Suu Kyi was arrested—yet again—and is to be put on show trial, so that the Burmese authorities can detain her for a further period.
	That is the substantive point, but will the Leader of the House consider a process point, as well? Could consideration be given to introducing a system whereby, if enough right hon. and hon. Members sign an early-day motion—250 or 300, perhaps—we could vote on it as we do in the deferred votes on Wednesdays, and, by such a mechanism, express the will of the House of Commons? People such as the Chinese Government, the Burmese authorities and others would be able to see that the House of Commons has expressed its will, without our needing to hold a full debate, followed by a resolution. We in this place, unlike those in other legislatures, are rather restricted in how we express our will.

Harriet Harman: Early-day motions are important for that reason. They allow hon. Members to put their names to motions tabled to show support for a particular position.
	We are all concerned about the arrest in Burma. We have always held that the detention is illegal, and that has been confirmed by a UN working group. We cannot speculate on whether the regime were behind the US swimmer incident, but they are clearly exploiting it for their political advantage. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will find an opportunity to raise the matter again at Foreign Office questions next week.

Peter Bone: I understand that the Leader of the House has come up with what can only be called a prime ministerial solution to the second home problem. I understand that she has identified a site that is rent-free and very close to Parliament and can accommodate hundreds of MPs. Is it true that, next week, she will issue hon. Members with tents and order them to camp on Parliament square?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman knows the answer to that question. Of course we all support the principle that there should be probity and integrity in the system, but we also support a principle for which the Americans have a much better expression than we do—from log cabin to White House. It should not be necessary to be wealthy to become a Member of this House.
	A point on which we also all agree and on which the hon. Gentleman's question touches is the importance of the constituency link. That is a uniquely important feature of the House of Commons: not only do we do our business here, but we are linked with our constituents in our individual constituencies. That is the main reason why we have the allowance. We have to sort out the system, but we must respect and support the constituency link in doing so.

John Barrett: May we have a debate on how to ensure that the people elected to this House more accurately reflect the make-up of our society, especially people with disabilities?

Harriet Harman: The Speaker's Conference is doing exactly that. It has members from both sides of the House and we look forward to its report and recommendations.

Robert Wilson: May we have a debate on the funding of successful, expanding sixth forms in England, such as the one at Highdown school in my constituency? Many hon. Members have already raised the funding formula cut, which the Government have now put right, but the Learning and Skills Council is still not properly funding successful, expanding sixth forms and this is causing great concern to many parents and students in my constituency.

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman will know that, despite the massive increased investment in further and higher education, there have been major problems with the LSC, which have affected sixth forms and colleges in all constituencies. We shall continue to increase the budget for apprenticeships, colleges and Train to Gain, but as he rightly points out, there is still some sorting out to do in the Learning and Skills Council. The problems are causing uncertainty and we want to resolve them as quickly as possible.

Points of Order

Evan Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Disappointingly, the Leader of the House said that only one day would be available for the Policing and Crime Bill on Report. She admitted that that would result in scrutiny only of those clauses that the Government arrange in the programme motion. I understand that programming was designed to aid scrutiny, but it is being used to stifle it and, in effect, to impose the Government's selection of amendments and new clauses. I also understand that—perhaps for procedural reasons—you do not or cannot select amendments to order of consideration motions at Report stage.
	Although in this case the Leader of the House has offered to consult on the programme motion, ultimately, the Government can impose their own, as they did with the Bill that became the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, the Coroners and Justice Bill and the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill. My question to you, Mr. Speaker, is: will you consider how programming operates and—perhaps as a defender of Back Benchers' interests—how we can return to the original function of programming, which was to aid parliamentary scrutiny of Executive action? At present, the Government, not necessarily in bad faith, decide what parts of their programme we are able to scrutinise.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. He will have heard the remarks made by the Leader of the House a few minutes ago. I understand that the Procedure Committee is starting an inquiry into the subject, and that is the best way for him to take his deep concern forward. I thank him for raising the matter.

David Heath: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not think that any hon. Member underestimates the gravity of the revelations that have appeared over the past week. It is clear that individual Members will have to account for their own actions and that we as a House are responsible for the system within which they have operated. It is appropriate for the House to reflect on the judgment of those who, in recent years, have sought to block reform of the system and increased transparency. It is that last point that I want to ask you about.
	I am in no doubt that Officers of the House are being bombarded with requests for information. They have the invidious job of trying to respond to those requests. Will it be possible to share with the wider House the advice that is given to Officers on how to respond to those requests, so that we as a House can take ownership of the appropriate response to requests for transparency and so that we are not put in the same position again? Officers must have clear guidelines within which they operate and the House must be assured that we are not inappropriately blocking requests for information which should properly be given to the public.

Mr. Speaker: Those matters are being looked into by Committees of the House. It is not for me to agree to the hon. Gentleman's request. If he puts what he has just said on the Floor of the House in writing, I will reply, giving him a reasoned response.

Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I assure you that this point of order has nothing to do with the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker)?

Andrew Love: Why not?

Julian Lewis: I think that the hon. Member for Lewes has done enough to himself.
	Mr. Speaker, you have rightly drawn attention to the distinction between that information which has been released early and that information, such as Members' home addresses, ex-directory telephone numbers and bank account details, which has been stolen as a result of a criminal breach of the Data Protection Act. What guarantee is there that the same thing will not happen again with the next year's claim forms and receipts if the House insists on handling them in electronic form rather than in paper form? If the House had not handled that material in electronic form, it would have been impossible for people to steal the private data, which everyone, whatever they think about the claims—the substantive data themselves— must agree should never have been copied.

Mr. Speaker: I have to be careful about what is said on the Floor of the House regarding hon. Members' private business and that of their staff. The Clerk of the House, as the corporate officer, felt that there was a criminal matter involved, and he took it up with the police. Perhaps some clarity can be given to the issue: the Clerk felt that there was a criminal matter and, he, as the corporate officer, took it up with the police. I endorse what he had to do. Now that we have called in the police, I have to be careful about my response to the hon. Gentleman and his point of order. I know that he will appreciate that.

Sri Lanka

Topical debate

Bill Rammell: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of Sri Lanka.
	With the conflict between the Sri Lankan Government and the LTTE in a critical phase, it is appropriate that we again discuss events in Sri Lanka. At the outset, I must apologise to the House, however, because I shall not be present for the winding-up speeches.
	As the conflict area shrinks, now covering fewer than 5 sq km, so the risk to the tens of thousands of civilians who are still trapped in that area rises. That was shockingly brought home by the latest reports of the use of heavy weapons and of very many civilian casualties, including children. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary surely spoke for all Members when he said at the United Nations on Monday that he was appalled by those reports. Such actions would be deplorable at any time; they are all the more deplorable coming so soon after the Sri Lankan Government's own commitment on 27 April to cease using
	"heavy calibre guns, combat aircraft and aerial weapons".

Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend mentioned the Foreign Secretary's excellent statement in New York. Is there any truth to the rumour, or, indeed, is it a fact, that Russia and China are still blocking Britain's efforts to bring the issue to the United Nations Security Council? Have the Government made an effort to place a resolution calling for a ceasefire on the agenda of the Security Council? Yes or no?

Bill Rammell: I shall come on to comment in detail about that situation, but let me reassure—unfortunately reassure—my right hon. Friend that there is still no consensus for Security Council action in terms of a resolution.
	The use of heavy weapons in an area of such dense civilian occupation will inevitably result in heavy civilian casualties, making it very difficult to comply with requirements under international law to minimise civilian casualties. Let me state quite clearly up front that we would support an early investigation into all incidents that may have resulted in civilian casualties, particularly the reported shelling of hospitals, to determine whether war crimes have been committed. The UN estimate, if accurate, of more than 6,500 civilian deaths since January is truly shocking and appalling.

Andrew Dismore: It is quite clear that the Sri Lankan Government are impervious to anything that the rest of the world says. They have turned their back on the rest of the world; is it not time that the rest of the world turned their back on the Sri Lankan Government, isolated them and held them to account for the appalling things that are going on?

Bill Rammell: As I shall come on to say, democratic states are held to a higher standard of responsibility than other organisations, and the Sri Lankan Government, as we have repeatedly urged them, must respond to that point.

Edward Davey: rose—

Bill Rammell: I am conscious of time, but I shall give way and then make progress.

Edward Davey: I am grateful to the Minister for making it absolutely clear that the Government support an investigation of any allegation of war crimes. Have they made it absolutely clear to the Sri Lankan Government that that is our message and that is what we will pursue?

Bill Rammell: Emphatically, yes.
	Before I say anything further about the conflict, I shall touch on the Tamil demonstrations outside the House and elsewhere. It can come as no surprise that the Tamil community in this country has been galvanized by events in Sri Lanka to march through the streets of London, and to stage protests on our doorstep, in Parliament square, and outside a number of diplomatic missions. I pay tribute to the vast majority of Tamils in the UK who make valued contributions to British society, and I assure them that we fully recognise their legitimate concerns. The right to demonstrate is fundamental to the workings of our democratic society, but demonstrations must remain within the confines of the law.

Lembit �pik: I am pleased to hear the Minister say that, but is he aware that the reputation of the Government and the British state is harmed in the eyes of the Tamils by pointless attempts to use terrorist legislation against individuals such as Muralee and Vithy Tharan who were found innocent of any wrongdoing in terms of consorting with the Tamil Tigers? To those people who make such strange judgments about whom to arrest and attempt to prosecute, will the Minister please pass on the message that it does not help to put innocent men in the dock and to wreck their lives for a year only to find out that they are innocent, as anybody who knew them already knew?

Bill Rammell: The hon. Gentleman knows, as I have stated, that there is a right to peaceful protest; he knows also that, on the decisions that are taken in such circumstances, there is operational independence. That is the right approach.
	Returning to the conflict, I believe that two crises are unfolding in Sri Lanka. The first, and most immediately pressing, concern is the fate of the civilians who are still caught in the conflict area. The lack of independent observers makes it impossible to be certain of the facts, but the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross estimate that there are anything between 50,000 and 100,000 civilians still trapped in an area that, to put it in context, is slightly larger than the combined area of St. James's and Green parks. There are very clear indications that the LTTE is holding many of those civilians against their will and using some of them as human shields. It shoots at civilians who try to escape, forcibly recruits those able to fight, including children, and uses others as labour to construct earthwork defences. We rightly and utterly condemn those practices, but we also have to be clear that they do not in any way, shape or form excuse any failings by the Sri Lankan Government.
	As I said earlier, democratically elected Governments are rightly held to higher account by the international community. The UN has spoken of a bloodbath, which must be avoided.

Simon Hughes: The Minister knows how supportive we are of him and his colleagues. Given the inability to establish the international presence that everyone wants in the area, are the Government willing to make representations to the Americans, who I understand have taken satellite photographs that show as much evidence as there is of activity, to make them formally available to the international community in order to seek to influence both sides, which would know that what they were doing was being seen and recorded?

Bill Rammell: The hon. Gentleman has taken a long interest in the issue, and our comprehensive view is that there is still not enough information to make an accurate assessment. However, I have listened to his point, and I shall consider it with my colleagues to see whether it represents a way forward.
	We have consistently maintained that both sides must abide by their obligations under international humanitarian law and do everything possible to avoid putting civilians unnecessarily at risk. As the Foreign Secretary made clear in New York on Monday, our message is simple: the killing has to stop. The Government call on the Sri Lankan Government to stop their military campaign and allow the UN or the ICRC to facilitate a move away from danger to safety for those civilians who wish to leave. We call on the LTTE to let civiliansthose same Tamils whom it claims to representto leave the conflict area.

Virendra Sharma: rose

Bill Rammell: I am very conscious of the time that is available, and many Members wish to speak. I shall give way one more time and then make some progress.

Virendra Sharma: Everybody appreciates and is thankful for the Foreign Secretary's intervention, the statement from the USA and the visit of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Des Browne), the special envoy, to Sri Lanka. However, despite the statement made on Monday, thousands of people have still been killed and the bombing is still going on; we can see the photographs today in the free papers distributed in the London underground. There is enough evidence. The communities over here are not satisfied; they are worried about, and unaware of what is happening to, their loved ones. The communities, particularly the Tamil community, would like more and more intervention in the situation.

Bill Rammell: I emphatically understand the frustration of people who want the conflict to be brought to a conclusion. The reality is that, despite our best efforts, the conflict is still going on. I say that to describe the scale of the challenge that we face, but in no way do I mean that we will stop our unstinting efforts to try to bring the conflict to a conclusion.
	The civilians to whom I have referred are in constant fear for their lives; they also desperately need food, drinking water and medicines. The regular operation of the International Committee of the Red Cross ship, which makes deliveries and evacuates the wounded, depends fundamentally on security. That is another reason why the Sri Lankan Government must uphold their commitment to stop using heavy weapons.
	The second crisis revolves around the conditions for civilians who manage to escape the fighting. We welcome the fact that more than 190,000 civilians, including more than 120,000 during the past four weeks, have been able to escape it and are now registered in the camps for internally displaced persons. The ability of the relevant agencies depends on the full co-operation of the Sri Lankan Government. Bluntly, that has not been forthcoming.
	Owing to those concerns and others, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and French Foreign Minister Kouchner visited Sri Lanka on 29 April. They made it clear to the President and Foreign Minister that the protection of civilians must be paramount and that the conflict must end. Since their visit, and the welcome visit made by the cross-party group of MPs, made up of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Des Browne)he sends his apologies for not being here today; he is speaking elsewhereabout the Sri Lankan crisis the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Sarwar) and the hon. Members for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and for Buckingham (John Bercow), there has been some improvement in the issuing of visas to the staff of the humanitarian agencies and in those agencies' ability to move around the country.
	However, more needs to be done. We will continue to press for improved access for the humanitarian agencies to the internally displaced persons and for adequate supplies of food, water and medicines to reach those in need. We are also calling on the Sri Lankan Government to ensure that the screening of IDPs is carried out in a fully transparent way that respects human rights and the dignity of those involved.
	The Sri Lankan Government also need to give free access to the international media. Let me be clear: what is needed is greater access and transparency, not less. As I have said in this place before, hon. Members across parties have been criticised and attacked by the Sri Lankan high commission for speaking out and expressing their legitimate concerns about the actions of the Sri Lankan Government. Such criticism of MPs who are doing their jobs legitimately on behalf of their constituents is wrong and unacceptable.
	As hon. Members will know, the Government have led in mobilising international pressure to bring about an improvement on the ground. In January, the Prime Minister was the first world leader to call for a ceasefire, and he has since repeated that call directly to President Rajapaksa. The Foreign Secretary has made the same call in his numerous contacts with the Sri Lankan President and Foreign Minister, in public statements and in concert with others, notably the United States and France.

Andrew Love: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Bill Rammell: One last time.

Andrew Love: The Indian elections are concluding on Saturday, and we need the new Indian Government to speak out on this matter. Not only that, but both Governments must speak out clearly in condemnation of countries such as China and Russia, which are impeding the progress of the United Nations attempt to resolve the dispute.

Bill Rammell: The issue of the Indian Government is at the fore of our concerns. Concerted international pressure is of paramount importance.
	In recognition of the importance of internationalising the issue, we have led the calls of the G8 for an end to the conflict and the calls of EU Ministers for a ceasefire. Two days ago, an EU troika visited Sri Lanka, and the country will feature prominently at next week's meeting of EU Foreign Ministers. We have also welcomed the engagement of the United Nations, including the personal involvement of the Secretary-General, with whom the Foreign Secretary has discussed Sri Lanka several times. My right hon. Friend has welcomed the Secretary-General's statements and made it clear that we fully support the visits to Sri Lanka made by his representatives, including Sir John Holmes, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, and Walter Klin, the Under-Secretary-General with responsibility for internally displaced persons. In the face of some opposition from others, we have also supported their subsequent briefings to members of the Security Council.
	As the Foreign Secretary made clear in New York on Monday, we strongly believe that the civilian situation in Sri Lanka merits the attention of the United Nations at all levels, including formal discussions by the Security Council. We welcome the important step taken by the Security Council yesterday in issuing its first official written statement on the worsening humanitarian crisis in Sri Lanka. While he was at the UN, the Foreign Secretary had direct meetings with other members of the Security Council, UN officials and non-governmental organisations, to discuss Sri Lanka.
	Despite opposition from some other members of the Security Council, we will continue to explore how to keep the Security Council actively engaged. That is the right thing to do; it will ensure that the spotlight of international attention remains focused on Sri Lanka and that the Sri Lankan Government can have no doubts about the international community's concerns. After his visit to the UN, the Foreign Secretary went to Washington, where he discussed Sri Lanka with Secretary of State Clinton and others in the Administration. We welcome President Obama's strong statement last night, which underlined again the force of international concern.
	In conclusion, I should say that for the past 25 years the conflict has inflicted dreadful damage on Sri Lanka and its citizens. The fighting now has to stop and the lives of civilians have to be safeguarded. There can be no military solution to the conflict; lasting peace can come about only through an inclusive process that takes fully into account the legitimate aspirations of all communities in Sri LankaSinhalese, Tamils and Muslims. How the conflict ends will have a direct bearing on the prospects for longer-term peace in the country. The Sri Lankan Government must win the peace as well as the war, and that will be the continuing focus of this Government's activity, together with international partners, in the coming days and weeks.

Keith Simpson: This is the latest in a series of debates in the House about the worsening situation in Sri Lanka. I say straight away that what the Minister said about the fate of the refugees in the so-called no-fire zone beggars imagination. That so many people should be attempting to live in such a small arealet alone under fireis absolutely horrific. We should bear that in mind.
	The Conservative party has supported the Government's initiatives to help resolve the fighting. I commend the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Des Browne), who told me last night that he would be unable to be here. I also commend the other colleagues on their recent visit to Sri Lanka and the information that they gathered; no doubt some of them hope to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, to update the House.

Siobhain McDonagh: Does the hon. Gentleman's support for UK Tamils and the British Government extend to a Member from his own party, who only on Monday suggested that water cannon be used against the Tamil demonstrators in Parliament square?

Keith Simpson: All hon. Members must be responsible for their individual thoughts; I certainly do not support what was said at all. I say with great respect to the hon. Lady that, on the whole, there is amazing consensus on both sides of the House on this issue. Now is not the time to raise such issues; I have made the Conservative Front-Bench position perfectly clear in all the debates. Indeed, in a few minutes I shall comment on what has happened in respect of the demonstration.
	Since we last debated this issue, the situation has got demonstrably worse for civilians in the no-fire zone. The Sri Lankan Government had made a commitment not to use heavy weapons, but the recent bombardment of the last hospital appears to show that that commitment has been breached.
	As I am sure that hon. Members will recognise, the use of heavy weapons includes close air support, artillery and mortars. In a battle zone, the use of high-velocity firearmsself-loading rifles and pistolsis bad enough, let alone artillery fire. I press the Minister to say what independent evidence there is to place in front of the Sri Lankan Government, who appear to be in denial. I recognise that in a war zone, as this is, it is possible to make mistakes; we have seen that on occasions involving NATO forces in Afghanistan. However, I think that most people believe that this was a clear breach by the Sri Lankan Government, who should be told that not only the military commanders but the political leaders may well be held to account, as they should be, in the international court of opinion and, indeed, international law.

John McDonnell: The hon. Gentleman emphasised the small parameters within which refugees are located. Surely it is absolutely reckless, and leads towards allegations of war crimes, to use those sorts of weapons in such a small area, where it is inevitable that innocents will be injured, maimed and killed.

Keith Simpson: It is not only morally wrong, but stupid. If one has surrounded an area, there is a fair chance that if one starts lobbing artillery shells around one will get overshooting and might kill and injure some of one's own troops. Without being facetious, it is, as Talleyrand might have said, more than a crimeit is a mistake. Sadly, it is one of many mistakes that the Sri Lankan Government have made.
	As the Minister said, in excess of 140,000 civilians are now in IDP camps. Although the conditions in those camps are not as bad as in some that hon. Members have visited in other parts of the world, such as Darfur, they are not good, and they are not open to proper international inspection or to the media. What evidence do the Government have as regards the accusation made by several people who have had access to the camps that the Sri Lankan Government are weeding out young Tamils, not only directly because they are thought to have been active on the military side, but because they are young men, and they have gone into a category that I can only call the disappeared? Are we any closer to being able to persuade the Sri Lankan Government to respond to the request by the United Nations, the UK Government and other Governments for greater access to the camps?
	On the demonstration in Parliament square by the British Tamil community, I would like to support the Minister's comments. I think, on the whole, that although they have inconvenienced large parts of London, they have been within the natural bounds of such demonstrations. Given that many of them have relatives who have been killed, injured or wounded, or are under threat of all three, there is a natural emotion there.
	Following the demonstrations, the debates that we have had in this House, and the formal requests made by the Government to the Sri Lankan Government, is there any evidence that the Sri Lankan Government have in any way moderated any of their policies? I said in our last debate, although I did not wish to be a Jonah, that I feared that they are not open to any persuasion at all. Indeed, I get the impression from colleagues who have recently returned from Sri Lanka that, if anything, they become even more intransigent in having these legitimate points put to themalthough that is not a reason for us not to do it. The House should recognisethis is not to undermine the activities that have been undertakenthat, sadly, there seems to be no evidence that the Sri Lankan Government are prepared to moderate their policies. I suspect that that is because they still believe that in a matter of days or weeks they will have gained a military victory over the LTTE. However, as the Minister and other hon. Members have said, they will win the narrow military war but lose the peace; this will rebound on them.

Andrew Love: Should it not also be incumbent on Government, this Parliament and the international community to communicate to the Sri Lankan Government that even when the conflict is over, people will be held to account for what happened during it?

Keith Simpson: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I am pleased that the Minister stated formally at the Dispatch Box that the Government have support for potential war crimes investigations. The Sri Lankan Government will obviously have to live with that. I would add that members of the LTTE, who are using civilians in the war zone and executing people who want to leave, also face the prospect of international prosecution.
	What further effective pressure can we bring to bear in the immediate future on the Sri Lankan Government and, interestingly, on the LTTE? Does any country or organisation have any influence over the LTTE?

Stephen Hammond: Does my hon. Friend think that a representation to the Indian Government following the result of the general election in India will result in their possibly being able to exercise more influence on the Sri Lankan Government?

Keith Simpson: I recognise that this is a matter of judgment for our Government, but I would like to think that, with the general election effectively over, there may be an opportunity for the British Government to make representations to the Indian Government, who, as my hon. Friend rightly said, may be able to have some influence on the situation.
	The Minister referred to the welcome news that, crab-like, the United Nations Security Council has moved from a position whereby several members were effectively saying that what was going on in Sri Lanka was an internal matter to a hardening up of that position. Do the Government intend to have any further discussions or conversations with individual members of the Security Council? On the question of whether we should put down a resolution, I accept that that is, again, a matter of judgment. On balance, I feel that if we were to put down a resolution knowing that it would be vetoed, that might look good in terms of publicising a negative view of one or other members of the Security Council. My view at this moment is that the Sri Lankan Government would regard that as a great plus and it would make them even more intransigent, but I accept that circumstances may change.
	In broad terms, Conservative Members still actively support the Government's policy on this. We recognise that the British Tamil community are suffering greatly emotionally. Although all we can do in this House is debate the situation, we would still like to think that we are, in many respects, giving support to the people who have relatives out there suffering. I hope that the Sri Lankan Government will, little by little, recognise that they are isolated internationally and that, as a consequence of the latest United Nations resolution, they may be isolated even further.

Several hon. Members: rose

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Speaker had imposed an eight-minute time limit on Back-Bench contributions, but since then further Members have indicated a wish to contribute to the debate. I therefore regret to say that in order to try to accommodate everyone, I will reduce Back-Benchers' speaking time to six minutes.

Edward Davey: I thank the Minister for his opening speech, which accurately described the situation and what needs to be done. The efforts of the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and others have been leading the international community. The Minister will not be surprised to hear that we urge him to do even more; nevertheless, he and his colleagues deserve credit for what they have done.
	I also thank the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), whose remarks were also helpful. It is important that we make this a cross-party matter as much as possible, because this is such a serious situation. Tens of thousands of civilians are facing shelling and the prospect of being victims in a bloodbath, or of being starved to death or dying from an epidemic. We have to come together to send the loudest possible signal that the Sri Lankan Government have to act like a proper, democratic Government and abide by the rule of law.
	The problem, of course, is that the Sri Lankan Government have not been listening. Despite all the efforts of the Foreign Secretary, President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton, who have made their position clear, President Rajapaksa has not been listening. So we have to work out what else we can do to prevent this human catastrophe and get them to listen.
	In his intervention, the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) said the two key things that we have to stress time and again to the Sri Lankan Government, and it was good that the Minister confirmed that that was precisely what the Government have been doing. We must make it clear to the Sri Lankan Government that if they do not behave properly and avoid this human catastrophe, they will be isolated, and that we will work the hardest to isolate them both as a Government and as individuals. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, we must also make it clear that we will hold them to account. They have to hear that message from everybody.
	It would be a lot better if the whole worldthe United Nationswere coming together to make that statement. We have had that debate, and to be honest I have probably shifted my position. We probably should not table a resolution until we know that it is not going to be vetoed. However, I should like to knowI do not know whether the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), will feel free to answer this when he responds to the debatewhat pressure we are putting on China in particular. The more I have examined the matter, the more I have found that it is the Chinese who are the real block, although they were hiding behind the Russians earlier. The Chinese have a massive vested interest because, as I said in a previous debate, China is now the biggest donor of aid to Sri Lanka, and while India and western Governments have refused to sell weapons to the Colombo Government, it has been the Chinese who have been supplying those weapons.
	We have had many debates on tragedies around the worldZimbabwe, Darfurin which China has been on the side of despotic Governments. We have to find a way to make China listen and take its responsibilities, over and above its economic interests, rather more seriously. This is not about domestic politics in China. The Chinese Government get terribly worried when we mention Tibet, and one can debate whether it is right for them to be so sensitive about it, but at least we can understand why they might be. They have to understand that if China is to join the world community and be accepted properly, as it deserves to be on the basis of its huge significance in the world, it has to act responsibly. Even if it wants to veto a resolution, why is it not using its weight and clout to bring President Rajapaksa to heel?
	The figures on arms sales and aid show that the President or Premier of China could pick up the phone and really exercise some influence over Sri Lanka. I should like to know whether the British Government are exercising their influence, and getting the Americans to exercise theirs, on the Chinese Government. That is one thing that we need to focus on, because it could really unlock some doors.

Simon Hughes: Does my hon. Friend accept that whereas the Chinese might, for historic reasons, be concerned that by either abstaining or supporting a resolution they might be supporting the case for an independent Tamil homeland, and worry about the implications of that in China, there has actually always been a strong Tamil voice, including from the LTTE, that accepts that that is not the only and necessary option? At the moment, that is not the main issue. The main issue is getting the peace, the ceasefire and other things, and the Chinese and potentially Russia should at least see the merit of abstaining, even if they are not able to support a resolution.

Edward Davey: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend, and we also need to go further within the European Union. It was good to hear in the Minister's opening remarks that the EU is going to discuss the matter in the next few days, and I hope that the Government will be pressing for trade sanctions on Sri Lanka. The idea that we should give the Sri Lankan Government preferential trade benefits at the moment beggars belief.
	In the less than one minute that remains to me, I add that what will happen after this immediate situation is resolved is difficult to foretell. We clearly need massive humanitarian assistance and support, but we also need to ensure that the message continues to be sent to the Sri Lankan Government that we are watching them. Not only must they act magnanimously to try to win the peace, and recognise Tamil rights and aspirations, but they need to keep the Tamil people around the island secure, including those living in Colombo. I fear that there could be repercussions on Tamil civilians living all over the island, but particularly in Colombo. The Sri Lankan Government must recognise that they need to keep all Tamil people safe throughout the island, and that they have to act responsibly as a democratic Government.

Neil Gerrard: I suspect that there will be a lot of agreement in this debatevirtual unanimityas there has been in earlier debates on this subject. I am one of quite a number of Members who have been accused of being supporters of the LTTE when we have spoken up in these debates. I hold no brief for the LTTE. I know that many Tamils regard them as freedom fighters, but I know something of their history and hold no brief for them. The Government of Sri Lanka need to understand that we are criticising them not because we are supporters of the LTTE but because what they are doing is totally and completely unacceptable from any Government.
	I am supporting the Tamil people, who for years and years have been denied political rights in Sri Lanka and have suffered from human rights abuses such as the disappearances and extrajudicial killings that have gone on, and the assassination of journalists who have said anything critical of the Government. I am supporting people in my constituency who have friends and relatives about whom they are desperately worried. They are fearful about what has happened to them and cannot get in touch with them. They fear that they are trapped in Vanni, among the civilians who are still being shelled by the Sri Lankan army.
	Civilians are entitled to protection from Governments. It is no good trying to draw equivalence between the Government and the LTTE, because Governments have duties under international law and conventions. To give one example, the protection of hospitals and medical care is one of the cornerstones of the Geneva conventions to which Governments sign up, but it is being totally and completely ignored at the moment.
	The key question is what we should do. It seems crystal clear that, as has been said this afternoon, the Government of Sri Lanka are simply not interested in a ceasefire at the moment. They believe that this is their opportunity to crush the LTTE once and for all. That is why they will not allow international observers and international organisations into the area. They believe that this is a war that they are about to win and that will be the end of the LTTE. The fact is, I do not believe that they can win this war.
	Even if the Sri Lankan Government manage to take the last bit of land that is currently occupied by LTTE, I am not convinced that that will mean the end of the LTTE. I am absolutely convinced that it will not mean the end of the problems, because nothing will solve them in the longer term except a political solution. That solution has to mean the recognition of the political and human rights of Tamil people in the whole of Sri Lanka. We must try to ensure that the people responsible for some of the criminal acts that have gone on and are still going on are brought to justice. I cannot see any move towards that at the moment within Sri Lanka.
	As long as the Government of Sri Lanka believe that they can act with impunity and continue to deny access to international organisations, the international media and international observers, they will continue to do exactly what they are doing now. The only way in which that will change is through international pressure. I know that the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers have been doing what they can, but we simply need to do more. We must try to get a resolution through the UN. We should be considering suspension of Sri Lanka from the Commonwealth. We should make sure that Sri Lanka does not get money from the International Monetary Fund.
	The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) referred to isolation, which is an important sanction, but until the Government of Sri Lanka feel that they are being isolated, they will not significantly change their policies. They must realise that they will not be supported, through arms sales, international finance and trade, as long as the killing continues and people in Sri Lanka are denied basic human and political rights.

Lee Scott: We have had numerous debates in the Chamber and in Westminster Hall on Sri Lanka. The Prime Minister has been deeply involved in the matter, the Foreign Secretary has paid visits to Sri Lanka and a recent delegation has just got back from there. The House is unanimous in its disgust at what the Sri Lankan Government are doing daily to innocent people. Although our words are worthy, they will not save one life among the relatives of my constituents and those of other Members. More people are dying every day.
	The Sri Lankan Government seem to hold everyone and everything in utter contempt. They could not care less what any of us say. I welcome what the President of America said yesterday, and what Hilary Clinton has said, but I am not convinced that the Sri Lankan Government could care less what they say.
	What can we do to make a difference and to act as the voice for people who do not have one at present? As the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) said, and as I have said in previous debates, the only thing we can do is to suspend Sri Lanka from the Commonwealth now. Sanctions must be taken against Sri Lanka so that it hears loud and clear that the world will not accept what it is doing to innocent people.
	I have heard no one on either side of the House speak up for any terrorist act, and nor would we. However, I have seen some of the photographs on the internet taken by the American satellitethey were mentioned by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey)that show the terrible conditions in which people are being asked to live. In 2009, how can we stand by and let that happen? How can the world stand by and let it happen? But that is what we are doing.
	In the previous debate on this matter, I said that we should hang our heads in shame if nothing is done. It is not that we are not trying, because everyone in the Chamber is trying to do everything that they can, but when a democratic GovernmentI use the term looselycondemn each and every one of us, call us white Tigers, as they have done on a website today, cannot take criticism and have no morals at all, action must be taken. They should not be given any money from the International Monetary Fund. They should know that the whole world is united in condemning what they are doing. There must be an immediate ceasefire now. Humanitarian aid must be allowed in, as should non-governmental organisations. The media should be allowed in.
	In the longer term, when people are no longer dying every day, we can consider how a political solution can be found to the problem. I believeI emphasise that this is my own view, and I have not discussed it with those on my Front Benchthat autonomy might be the only way forward. I apologise to those on my Front Bench if that was a shock, but it is my view.
	Many Members want to speak in the debate, and I do not intend to prolong my contribution. However, we must help, and we must help now, or I for one will not be able to look Tamil constituents in the face and say that we are doing everything that we can. I pledge to continue to do everything in my limited power to stop the genocide that is happening in Sri Lanka today.

Keith Vaz: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Scott). No Conservative Member has done more for the Tamil cause than him. I pay tribute to him not only for his speech and his work, but for clearly putting the shopping list to the Government: we should not give any more money from the IMF; ensure that we get a resolution before the Security Council insisting on a ceasefire; and call for suspension from the Commonwealth. I would go one stage further. Why are we even considering allowing Sri Lanka to host the next Commonwealth conference in 2011? We should make it very clear to Sri Lanka that we will not be present if that happens.
	I have three emotions today: pride, anger and despair. The pride is in what the Government have done. I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for all his meetings with Members on both sides of the House, to the Prime Minister, who has met the all-party delegation twice, to the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Bill Rammell), for his work on the matter, and to the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster). Ministers have been prepared to take calls from Members who are concerned about the matter at all times of the day or night. I rang the Under-Secretary at five o'clock in the morning. I thought he was in Worcester; he was actually in Indonesia, but he still took my call.
	My concern is that we are still not doing enough. To paraphrase my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who has become a mini-diplomat in her own right, visiting all the countries that are on the Security Council, and encouraging us all to attend, the Foreign Secretary is our friend as are all those on our Front Benchand Labour Back Benchers do not check their speeches with those on their Front Benchbut from friends we expect more. I thought that the Minister of State gave us a Foreign Office speech today. I know, because I have been a Foreign Office Minister. The Foreign Office is full of wonderful people, it is the best in the world, and the greatest diplomatic service anywhere, but the speech was still couched in diplomatic terms. This House wants more.
	The eloquent speeches of the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) and the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) indicate that my hon. Friend has the united will of the House behind him. He has political cover, but his speech was not enough. What is the point of this great, wonderful country of ours, which I love and which I came to as a first-generation immigrantI chose to come here, I was not born hereand which has so many values that are followed by Parliaments and peoples all over the world, sitting on the Security Council? What is the point of hearing condemnations here and there, which of course we welcome, if we do not get something done?
	We intervened in Kosovo. I accepted the dossier presented to the House by the previous Prime Minister, and I voted to intervene in Iraq. I say that we cannot stand aside. The hon. Member for Ilford, North said that he cannot face his Tamil constituents if we do nothing. I cannot face coming to this place if our wonderful Government, who have done so much, will not take the next step. What is the point of the UN if we do not take effective action to stop what is happening? There is a ship off the coast of Sri Lanka with tons of food that should be delivered to innocent people who are dying and being killed by their own Government, who are committing genocide against their own people, and the world stands by and issues statements. People have had enough. They want firm action to be taken. If the United States, Britain and Indiathey have all condemned the genocidecannot act together to stop the genocide, nobody can.

Andrew Love: I am listening carefully to my right hon. Friend's speech. He touched on the role of the Indian Government now that the elections have been concluded. Does he believe that it is critical for countries such as the United Kingdom and India to put the enormous pressure that they can bring to bear on the Sri Lankan Government?

Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. India cannot do it on its own, but going through the statements made by all the Foreign Ministers and Prime Ministers, India, the United Kingdom and the United States speak with one voice. But speaking with one voice and condemning is not enough when genocide is being committed. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister had to read his speech. I know that he has put a lot of work into it. I know that it is probably very different from the speech that he was given originally and that he has added his own words, but it is not as we would like to hear it. We want more.
	I am pleased that the special envoy went to Sri Lanka. I thank the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Sarwar) and other colleagues for going to Sri Lanka at short notice. I look forward to hearing what they have to say. The fact remains, however, that there is a Government who are not only committing genocide and arresting British journaliststhe Channel 4 reporters because they happen to be reporting truthfully from the war zone, but separating people from their families so that they may never see each other again and causing such despair.
	The Minister walks into that Foreign Office every day. He cannot possible want to go in there another day and feel that we are not doing more. We cannot stand by and in five years' time realise that the Sri Lankan Government have wiped out a whole people, We have to do something now.
	I remember the fabulous speech that our Prime Minister made to the US Congress only a few months ago. He stood before it and talked about a young man who had died in Rwanda. His name was David. He said that on his tombstone were the words David. Occupationwhat he wanted to be, because he was only a young mana lawyer, and also his last words, Don't worry. The UN will come for us. Let us not allow the Tamil people to say of us that in the moment of their darkest hour, we stood by, we passed a lot of resolutions, we had a lot of meetings, but we did not do anything effective. I say to the Government, to the Minister of State and to the Under-Secretary of State, we want moremore because we expect more and more because we do not want any more deathsand we urge them to act immediately.

Malcolm Bruce: I come to the debate with some trepidation because I am fresh to the topic. On the other hand, I was a member of the delegation led by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Des Browne) which was in Sri Lanka last week. I hope to share with the House something of what we saw and heard.
	It is fair to say that the stance of the Sri Lankan Government can be described as aggressive defence. When we met the President, at one point in our engagement he indulged in what I can only describe as a hissy fit, saying, We're not a former colony. It was the usual response. Indeed, in response to the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) who quoted United Nations evidence, the President denounced the UN as infringing the sovereignty of Sri Lanka by trying to monitor and observe what was going on. He protested vigorously, as Ministers of the Sri Lankan Government are doing to this day, that no heavy artillery of any kind was being used within the war zone. If that is the case and that is the Sri Lankan Government's position, the best response is to allow international observers to see what is happening. If that does not happen, they can hardly be surprised if people draw the wrong conclusions.
	We did not go to the war zone. Hardly anyone has tried to. It is a very dangerous place, and none of us knows what is going on or who is doing what. We do know, however, that tens of thousands of people are trapped there, clearly in a desperate situation, which everyone wants brought to an end as quickly as possible. Nevertheless, it is important to share some of the things that we did observe.
	It is interesting that the media were denied the access that we were given. That in itself is a problem for the Sri Lankan Government. Apart from myself and the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, the delegation included the hon. Members for Buckingham, for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Sarwar) and for South Down (Mr. McGrady). We were flown into Vavuniya and taken to the two newest parts of the camps there, zone 2 and zone 3, I think. Zone 3 had not existed the week before we were there; it had been forest. The Sri Lankan army had cleared the forest, put in roads, shelters, water points and sanitation, and provided some clinics and food. That is an objective fact.
	There were problems because the food was not arriving at an even speed. There was pressure on water and sanitation. There were not enough medical supplies. As hon. Members have said, people were concerned about being separated from their families, not having access to them and not having information about them; they were fearful of what was happening to them. Clearly, we impressed on the Sri Lankan authorities the need to address those issues, again in good faith, if they were honestly claiming to deliver a safe environment before allowing people to return to their own areas.
	The initial problem was that when the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun asked people to tell their stories, the crowd drew around but the military were there. The first exchanges were extremely inhibited, with a brigadier interrupting an interpreter and challenging what that interpreter was saying. We got away and asked the military to stand back, which they did, and asked people about their experiences. Many of those people had escaped from the conflict zone at the point at which the Sri Lankan army had breached the bund that had been built around it. Something like 165,000 people were reputed to have walked out and been taken into the camps.
	I can and should report what people said. They were grateful to the Sri Lankan army for giving them the opportunity to escape and were glad to be out of the conflict zone. In response to direct questions, they said they had not left earlier because the LTTE had basically said, If you try to leave, you will be shot. They had evidence of people who had tried and who had been shot at. That is an objective fact.
	However, if that is the whole story, why not let the international community in, in the numbers that are necessary, to help to deliver the supplies that are not being fully provided? Why not give the media the opportunity that we had and let them in to see and hear those stories for themselves? That is the message to the Sri Lankan Government. They cannot issue denials and protestations while keeping the country closed and expect people not to believe the counter-argument. They have lost the propaganda war. The way to justify their behaviour is to open the country up to proper public scrutiny.

Simon Hughes: Were my right hon. Friend and his colleagues able to ask whether humanitarian aidfood, medical supplies and watercould be allowed into the conflict zone now, and what the Government's objection was to that?

Malcolm Bruce: Of course, that is exactly the question we asked. Some of the supplies had been getting in. The fundamental problem, and the Under-Secretary may be able to confirm this, was that the agenciesthe UN and othersexperienced bureaucratic delays affecting, for example, what trucks they could take in and the visa processes. As a result, a variety of equipment and expertise was poised to go in, but not getting there. It is not true to say that nothing was there, but it was not arriving fast enough and not on the scale that was needed. Of course, it was not open to international scrutiny, which is the merit of what needs to be concluded.

Andrew Dismore: The right hon. Gentleman described the conditions in the camps, but there have been many accounts of young menpresumably considered to be LTTE suspectsbeing screened out from the camps even before they get there. Does he have any idea whether that is going on, and in particular what is happening to those young men and whether they are being taken away?

Malcolm Bruce: I am grateful for that intervention, because we asked that question. The local authorities conceded that several thousand people had been taken out of the camps to a nearby technical college where they were being screened and put through to rehabilitation. Apart from whatever that implies, the problem is that people were not given access or information about what was happening, which was causing more distress. To be honest, some people understood the motivations, but were not satisfied because they could not get in touch with others. One woman was in tears: she had a phone number but no access. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central tried to facilitate that communication.
	Those are the kinds of things that international agencies can help to achieve and support. The issue one has to consider is that if there is to be a long-term future for Sri Lanka as a successful democratic country, there must be proactive measures to integrate and provide support and rights for every member of the community. A passing observation was that in the north the elements of the police force and army that were visible were entirely Singhalese. There was no significant Tamil representation.
	Those are the long-term solutions which should be sought, and which we wanted to discuss constructively with the Sri Lankan Government. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun has made it clear that the delegation would be willing to revisit Sri Lanka and engage in such discussions if the Sri Lankan Government were willing for that to happen. But for those who have been engaged in the debate and the conflict for decades, there is a huge legacy of bad faith and bad treatment that prevents the Sri Lankan Government's assertions about their conduct and stance from being credible.
	The message is simple. If the Sri Lankan Government do not want to end up as a pariah, isolated from the international community, the answer is Let the international community in, let the observers in, let the media in, stand by your claims in public, and then you might be rehabilitated. Your refusal to take such action will only lead people to draw the obvious conclusions that you so deeply resent.

Siobhain McDonagh: The Sri Lankan Government believe that we will not do anything. They believe that Governments around the world make statements but are not prepared to back them up. They believe that the United Nations will talk and not pass a resolution. They believe that the Commonwealth will talk and not suspend them, and may even allow them to hold a Commonwealth conference when it perceives all this as being over in 2011. They are not looking for our good opinion. They are not looking for all of us to be united. They want to be secure in the knowledge that we are happy to make statements and do nothing. A bully does not stop because you ask him to; a bully stops because you force him to.
	We are simply seeing hundreds and thousands of people dying, starving to death on our watch. We are looking at the failure of all the institutions that Members hold dear. What is the UN worth if it can see people doubly amputated on a beach and not pick them up and remove them? What is the point of a Commonwealth that does nothing about a country that is prepared to bomb its own people and then insult everyone's intelligence by suggesting it is not doing that?
	The Minister may think there is not enough evidence to prove that the Sri Lankan Government are currently bombing their own people, and he may be the only person in the world who thinks that, because we all know that it is happening. The newspapers know it is happening, and the UN knows it is happening. The point is, what are we going to do about it?
	The Sri Lankan Government believe they will get their loan from the International Monetary Fund, and who here is prepared to say that when they start defaulting on their loans the IMF will not back down? They believe that nothing will happen, and we have to prove that something will. That means that if there are demonstrations outside, we must encourage the Tamil community to take the action that they feel they need to take. It means we must not suggest that it is a good idea to use water cannon on people, or that this constitutes an inconvenience and not a priority for us.
	We have responsibilities as Members, but we also have responsibilities as consumers. Why is it that a company such as Marks and Spencer, one of the most respected companies in the country, can spend a fortune using Sri Lankan suppliers, and no one says anything? How many companies in this country happily use Sri Lanka, and no one knows? How many people have shares in those companies, while making statements against the Sri Lankan Government?
	We have learned from our past international endeavours that it takes peoples and individuals to stand up to some of these mighty organisations, whether we are talking about Barclays bank in the case of apartheid or about any other company. We need to come together and, argue constructively, not only with the UN and the Commonwealth but with our own companies, as consumers, about what they are continuing to do. I hope we can do that in the coming weeks.
	We have to ask what is the biggest single thing we can do to cause a shock to the Sri Lankan Government. Is there any point in Britain's retaining an ambassador in Sri Lanka? What is that mission doing there? Is it saving anyone, is it protecting anyone, or it is giving succour to the Sri Lankan Government? I am absolutely confident that if the countries that have made the biggest statementsBritain, France or Americadecided to remove their ambassadors, we would see change. The question is, how much do we care, and how much do we want to see change?

Several hon. Members: rose

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate will end in less than half an hour. I ask Members, if they all want to contribute, to try to reduce the length of their contributions even further.

John Bercow: It is a pleasure and a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who spoke with an integrity, passion and eloquence that will have been admired by Members on both sides of the House.
	Like the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), I was a member of the five-person delegation to Sri Lanka that was led by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Des Browne). I was pleased to be part of that, and did it on the basis that I had no previous Sri Lankan footprint. To my knowledge, I do not have a significant number of Tamils in my Buckingham constituency. What I do have is a passionate interest in international affairs, human rights and the need to avoid, or minimise, conflict. I want, very briefly, to say something abut the Sri Lankan Government, about the camps that we visited, and about the future for the country as a whole.
	Let me be clear, like the right hon. Member for Gordon: the Government of Sri Lanka are still fundamentally in denial. They were given to ostentatious and bellicose denunciations of all and sundry who had dared to criticise them. They were extraordinarily rude, and inappropriately so, about the Foreign Secretary. They took umbrage at our raising critical evidence against them. For example, when I mentioned, during a meeting with the President, the UN's satellite photography, which appeared to repudiate the notion that they had stuck to their 12 February commitment not to deploy heavy weaponry, the President's response was both to complain bitterly about UN spying and to rant at me about adopting a neo-colonialist posture. The House will not be surprised to learn that I was not intimidated by the rant, or indeed impressed by it, but rant it nevertheless was, and it will not do. We are entitled to hold that Government to account.
	We underlined the imperative of a ceasefire. We said that heavy weaponry must not be used. We said, You cannot secure a military victory, and if you think you are behaving properly in the face of a considerable body of evidence to the contrary, glasnost must apply. Open up; let people witness what is taking place; allow the international aid agencies, and in particular the media, to inspect the territory and judge for themselves whether you are behaving properly.
	Let me next say something about the camps. We visited two zones of a camp called Menik Farm, which had been established only about a week earlier. Tents were more or less universally provided and everyone was housed, albeit in extremely spartan conditions. There was anecdotal evidence of a reasonable number of latrines and some evidence of a decent water supply, but much more needed to be done about sanitation.
	I was horrified to be told by students receiving tuition in business studies and by their tutorthis was at 4 o'clock in the afternoonthat they had not had a single thing to eat in the course of the day. That is lamentable and unsatisfactory, and must be changed without delay.
	What the right hon. Member for Gordon said was true. When we asked individuals in the camps, independently of each other and in the absence of any military personnelwhom we had told, in language that would not be acceptable in Parliament, that they needed to absent themselves from the scenewhy they had not escaped from the conflict zone earlier, those people, to a man and a woman, volunteered that they had been prevented from doing so by the LTTE on pain of being shot dead, and that they knew of others who had been. The position needs to be put on the record: the LTTE is a pretty poisonous force. But we were not there to stand up for the LTTE. We were there to have discussions, to observe the situation for ourselves and to challenge the Government of Sri Lanka, and we make no apology for doing that.
	The third point that I wish to make concerns the future. The Government of Sri Lanka are still obsessed with complaining about people waving banners and flags in Parliament square. We explained to them the principle and practice of the operational independence of the police. I remember saying to Foreign Minister Bogollagama that the idea that just because people demonstrate or wave a flageven of a proscribed organisationit would be justified for the police to wade in and round them up, or fire tear gas or water cannon at them, is for the birds, as that is simply not reasonable or proportionate. There has to be a constitutional blueprint for a sustainable future for all the people of Sri Lanka. The idea that there can be a military victorythat the LTTE can be wiped out and that the problem can be physically removed and that will be the end of the matteris nonsense on stilts, and the Government of Sri Lanka need to be clear about that.
	I went there, as others did, trying to be relatively impartial by taking note of the evidence but not seeking to take sides. However, I say to those who have much more experience on this subject than I do that since we came back the situation has got worse: the killing has continued, civilians have suffered, and there have been indiscriminate attacks. Unless the Government of Sri Lanka very quickly and in short order recognise the scale of international anger and change their behaviour, it will be inevitable that the multilateral institutions on which we depend for civilisation will assert themselves to take the strongest possible action against the regime. It is in the regime's hands to behave properly or to face the consequences.

John McDonnell: Like many other Members, I am here to voice the feelings of my Tamil constituents; a wave of anger, despair and almost desperation has swept over them. I have held constituency meetings, and hundreds of people have turned up. I have also received vast volumes of letters sharing examples of lost relatives, people butchered and maimed, and more now stranded on a beach and being shelled by the Sri Lankan Government. There is not a Tamil family in my constituency who have not been touched. Kandiah Mylvaganam, a friend of mine who has been pictured with me, went to Sri Lanka a few months ago to try to find a relative. He was hurt and became ill, but when he went to a medical station there were not sufficient drugs so he diedhe never came back. That highlights why there is such deep anger. No wonder so many people came to Parliament square; they felt no one was listening to them. I support them; I have been out there with many Members in absolute support of that demonstration. Now, however, the world has begun to listen, and the question on the lips of all of them is: Why can't you stop the killing? Why can't you stop the butchering that is going on?
	I pay tribute to what Ministers have done and the diplomacy, but when I go out and talk to my Tamil constituents and tell them that diplomacy takes time, that is incomprehensible to themespecially when 100,000 people are perched on a beach and being shelled by the Sri Lankan Government. I feel that now is the time for decisive action.
	The Sri Lankan Government are not going to move. This is a brutal, belligerent regime that is resisting all pressure. In the United Nations, there is the usual international game playing to do with spheres of influence and future strategic and military positioning. I think we have gone beyond that stage now. As we have seen fairly recently, if we cannot get UN multinational action, we now take unilateral action. In the past, we have looked for coalitions of the willing to invade places. Well, why cannot we have a coalition of the willing for peace? Why do we not now bring together our partners and make a clear statement of offering to broker a peace deal and to give the Sri Lankan Government 48 hours? If they do not abide by that, let us start on a programme of action, which should include breaking off all diplomatic links, as talking to them is not working so what is the point of that? We should send back their representatives and bring back our diplomats. We should isolate them diplomatically, as has been said.
	We should also isolate them economically. If that means imposing sanctions, then so be it, and if it comes down to sequestration of Sri Lankan money, wealth and industrial investments in this country, let us do that to show them we mean business.
	I also think there is now sufficient evidence to justify an inquiry into war crimes. We should be saying to representatives of the Sri Lankan Government, If you pass through our state, we will arrest you on suspicion of that. We believe that war crimes are taking place, and we take that so seriously that we will detain you if necessary to bring you to trial.
	Creative action is needed as well. The Tamil community has made the attempt to send a ship with aid. Why do not we, as a coalition of the willing for peace, send flotillas, and send in flights and if necessary drop aid? Even if we have to perch ships from various countries carrying aid near the shore and then send in aid and assistance to the beaches, we should do that. At the same time, we should send in human rights advisers, and observers and reporters, so we can tell the world what we are doing and what is happening there.
	The word genocide has been mentioned. Most members of my Tamil community believe genocide has taken place, and I must concur with them now because of the numbers of those who have died and been injured, and because of the targeting, in this small area, of this community. We cannot stand by. We need creative and decisive action, and we need it now.

Peter Bottomley: May I say four sentences? First, I pay tribute to the gentleness and courtesy of the demonstrators in Parliament square; there have been times when I have tried to get through when they have been having a big demonstration, and they have always made way and been understanding.
	The LTTE must be asked to stop, which basically means they must surrender; there is no military way forward for the LTTE in the current circumstances, and I hope that the Tamil communities in Sri Lanka, India and around the world will say to it, You have not got our support in maintaining a military resistance or offensive, and this has got to stop.
	I say to the Sri Lankan Governmentalthough I do not have the same expertise in these matters as some of my colleaguesthat they will be held accountable for the way they treat those who have come out from the enclave and those who are in the enclave.
	I also want to say that the Government have been treating this issue seriously and properly, and I pay tribute to them for that.

Jeremy Corbyn: We are meeting here while an enormous demonstration is taking place in Parliament square. I have been out there with colleagues many times and spoken to people, and I pay enormous tribute to them for being there, for what they are saying, and for what they are trying to achieve. Sadly, many of the people I have met out there I first met in 1984 and 1985 when they came to this country as asylum seekers and I supported their application for asylum at that time. What has recently been happening to the Tamil people is not new.
	What is happening to the Tamil people is the endgame of the madness of the Sri Lankan Government's idea that there is a military solution to this problem. They are going to bomb, they are going to maim, they are going to kill, and they are going to call it a victory. That victory is not possible, because the anger of the Tamil people will go on. There will therefore be an uprising of guerrilla actions in the future. There will therefore, I suspect, be forced population moves by the Sri Lankan Government against the Tamil people. The Government there are creating all the problems of tomorrow, and of all the tomorrows after that.
	There has to be an absolute demand for a ceasefire. There has to be isolation of Sri Lanka because of its refusal to undertake the ceasefire. There has to be a diplomatic and political way forward that brings about that ceasefire and a process of safety. I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said. Why cannot we have a Commonwealth mission going to Sri Lanka now that says, We're going to the war zone as human rights observers, and we will monitor what is going on and report back to the rest of the world? If we do not do that, are we just going to allow satellite images of this killing to go on and no further action to be taken?
	There is a cry for help in the square. There is a cry for help in Sri Lanka. There is a cry for help all over the world. If the UN cannot act, shame on the UN; and if the Commonwealth cannot act, shame on the Commonwealth. If we cannot act to impose economic sanctions now on Sri Lanka, shame on us.

Simon Hughes: Like the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn), I have sought to support the Tamil community for a quarter of a century, and wished and hoped and prayed that it would never come to this. Like other colleagues, I share the anger, frustration, despair and desperation of the Tamils in the country. I join Members in all parts of the House in paying tribute to the people who, with courtesy but out of desperation, have sought to come to Parliament and to the Government and say, You are the people we rely on; you must do more to help our families and friends.
	I also give thanks to those who have received us when we have gone with members of the Tamil community to see the Government, the American Governmentat the State Department and the White Housethe UN, the EU at Strasbourg, and the Commonwealth. The community has put its case more effectively than we ever could and those people have listened, but the action that it needs and that we call for has not been taken. As the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) said, the situation has become worse in its implications every day. I repeat my request to the Minister for the public release of the aerial and satellite photography, which would give usnowthe independent evidence, which I know exists, because I have seen some of it, and would make clear what is going on. I repeat the call for both sides to stop fighting nowwe must keep repeating that.
	I also wish to put on the record what specifically has to happenthis follows on from comments made by hon. Members from across the House. There ought to be an attempt by our Government to secure an agreement within the next few hours, or within the next day, for a coalition of countries to say to the Sri Lankan Government, Within one or two days we are going in with the relief, the aid, the food, the water and the medical aid. We are going to land and we challenge you to stop us. The international community cannot say that sovereignty takes precedence over international responsibility. We have passed that point, as the UN has accepted; the right to protect has been accepted. We have to say that we are going to implement that; we cannot wait for more diplomatic negotiations to take place.
	My call to Ministers is to respond to that. Of course we can seek a resolution in the UN Security Council and we can ask the United Nations Committee on Human Rights to take action. My Liberal colleagues say that the international communitiesthe Commonwealth, the EU and the UNare good because we are stronger together, but it is no good if being stronger together does not deliver any action. I ask that that now be taken. I ask that the Commonwealth take some action, because so far it has not done so and for those of us who believe in the Commonwealth, that is unsatisfactory.

John Bercow: The responsibility to protect is legally established and morally incontestable, so the Sri Lankan Government need to be clear about that. May I say to the hon. Gentleman in case this was not clear, although the point was made very powerfully by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), that allegations of war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide must be investigated whenever? There can be no question of any amnesty for the Sri Lankan Government, at any time, from consideration of allegations of that kind.

Simon Hughes: I absolutely support that, and I ask the Minister to indicate in his winding-up speech that the Government have begun the work on investigating war crimes and are working with other partnersI know that the US is active on thisto ensure that the Sri Lankan Government know that that is happening so that those who are responsible are held to account.
	I wish to make only two further points, because we want everybody to contribute to this debate. The first follows some of the other requests that have been made. Another way of effectively making the point to the Sri Lankan Government is for the Governments of the other Commonwealth countries, other countries in the EU and the United States simultaneously to call in the high commission ambassadors and warn them that if there is not a stop to the Sri Lankan Government's military action, there will be a peaceful but immediate intervention. That concerted sign has to be given, because all the pleas have so far fallen on deaf ears.
	Lastly, I am very conscious of the fact that this House has become very united and very determined on this issue. I am grateful that the Foreign Affairs Committee looks as though it will respond to the petitions presented on behalf of our Tamil communities here by considering the human rights issues in its human rights report. But this situation is a challenge to the effectiveness of our democracies and our democratic Governments, and so far, in the moment of the greatest need of any people from this country since I was elected 25 years or so ago, our democratic system has been found wanting. We have to do more if the effectiveness of our own democracy is not to be undermined and if we are not to let down people whose relatives are threatened with the prospect of not being alive tomorrow.

Virendra Sharma: Since the previous debate in the House, things have got significantly worse in the conflict area in north-east Sri Lanka. There are about 120,000 people in a narrow strip of coastal land of only 3 sq km, and the shortage of food, water and medicine has got significantly worse, although thanks to the efforts of the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister's special envoy, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Des Browne), some improvements were temporarily made. I thank them for their ongoing efforts to bring about a ceasefire and to get humanitarian aid to the Tamil civilians caught in this terrible conflict.
	It is also without doubt now clear, despite their denials, that the Sri Lankan Government forces are using heavy weapons to shell this small area. The reports of the past few days of hundreds of deaths and casualties in the makeshift hospitals in the conflict area are testament to the callous indifference of the Government of Sri Lanka to innocent civilian casualties. It is clear that the Sri Lankan Government armed forces do not have the capability to avoid civilian casualties or the moral will to stop killing innocent civilians. There must be an immediate and permanent ceasefire to stop this slaughter of innocent Tamil people. The Government of Sri Lanka must also be held to account for these war crimes, and there must be proper UN investigations into any alleged war crimes.
	The International Red Cross is continuing to try to get food and medical supplies into the war zone by sea, but the continuing fighting has made that very difficult. Civilians are now starving and dying from untreated injuries, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has said. Any member of the Tamil community will give thousands of examples of relatives, brothers, sisters and friends dying because of the shortage of medical aid and food, so an immediate ceasefire to allow humanitarian aid into the conflict zone is vital.
	Reports from Channel 4 News about conditions for the 180,000 Tamil civilians in Sri Lankan Government internment camps are also very worrying. There have been reports of dead bodies left for days; sexual abuse; food, water and medical shortages; and families being split up. The Government of Sri Lanka must allow UN and international aid agencies into these camps. The Sri Lankan Government are now isolated, given their unwillingness to call a ceasefire and to allow international media into the conflict zone and the camps. I urge our Government to take the steps that other hon. Members have mentioned, because that is how we will win the confidence of the communities here and have the trust and the faith of the international communities.

Barry Gardiner: I wish to make just three points. On Monday, having spent many hours, and after seven separate phone numbers had been given to me, I was able finally to make representations to try, with the UK Border Agency, to block the deportation of a young woman, whom I shall simply call Laksna, aged 21. She had been sexually assaulted by the Sri Lankan security forces and had come to this country seeking asylum, but she was facing deportation. I want to put on the record my gratitude to the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Borders and Immigration for the way in which, after I had eventually discovered that despite those representations to block the deportation that woman had been taken to Heathrow and was about to be put on the planethat was in stark contrast to the assurances that I had been given by the UKBAthey ensured that that young woman was sent back into detention in Yarl's Wood and was not deported. Can this Minister assure me that the country assessment that the UK has now made of Sri Lanka has been communicated to the Home Office and that no further deportations of Tamil asylum seekers will be allowed?
	The second point that I wish to make is that it is time that relatives of the members of the Sri Lankan regime were no longer deemed welcome in this country, whether they are here studying as studentsas immediate family of the President have beenor in other ways. Diplomatic sanctions must now be imposed, and those people, including more distant relatives, should be told that they are not welcome in this country.
	Finally, unless this House looks at the strategic relationship between Sri Lanka and Chinaa point made by the Liberal Democrat spokesmanincluding the investment made in the port at Hambantota, we will not see a full resolution of this conflict.

Michael Foster: In the very few seconds left to me, I undertake to write to colleagues to address the issues that have been raised
	 One and a half hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings, the motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 24A).

Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understand the problem with time, but it does no credit to this House that a debate as important as this has to be curtailed after such a short time. Is there any way in which it can be extended, even for only half an hour, to allow the few remaining hon. Members who wish to contribute to do so, and the Minister to respond? I understand that not very many Members wish to take part in the next debate.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order and I understand that many hon. Members would have liked to contribute to the last debate for longer and to have heard the Minister reply. I did my best to ensure that as many Back Benchers contributed as possible, but I regret to say that the Standing Orders do not allow for an exception to be made.

Swine Flu

Alan Johnson: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of swine flu.
	I have written to Mr. Speaker and to Opposition Front Benchers to give my apologies because I will not be able to be here for the close of this debate. I am grateful for their understanding.
	The likelihood of the current outbreak of swine flu developing into a full-blown pandemic remains high. According to the latest figures, there are now 6,497 confirmed cases across the world, including 2,446 in Mexico, 3,352 in the US and 389 in Canada. Every continent has confirmed cases and there have been 60 deaths in Mexico, three in the US, one in Canada and one in Costa Rica. There are currently 78 confirmed cases in the UKone in Northern Ireland, five in Scotland, 72 in England and none in Wales. There are cases in every region of England except Yorkshire and the Humber.
	While there are still many uncertainties about this virus, scientists are learning more every day, and their findings are informing the preparations of the World Health Organisation and Governments across the world. The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, chaired jointly by the chief scientific adviser, Professor John Beddington, and leading independent scientist Sir Gordon Duff, are gathering and assessing all the latest information available. This includes the work of researchers at Imperial college who have studied the evolution of the epidemic and whose findings were published earlier this week, and of course the Health Protection Agency, which has been to Mexico to study the virus in its place of origin.
	Early studies indicate that this virus has pandemic potential. However, it is still a novel virus and it is difficult to say anything concrete about its severity, not least because there are many local factors that have an influenceavailability of antivirals, the robustness of local health systems, standard of living and the prevalence of underlying health conditions. Currently, the virus appears to be milder than the most severe previous pandemicsnotably the pandemic of 1918. But flu viruses are prone to mutationit could become more virulent or it could lose strength over time.

Mark Field: Obviously, all of us hope that this outbreak will not be as serious as the worst-case scenarios and projections. I thank the Minister for being in touch with me about one of the earliest cases in this country which affected a constituent of mine. I was grateful to be tipped off about that so early.
	On 1 May the  Evening Standard claimed that the response plan for London envisaged 94,000 deaths, with a hit list for every borough. Does the Secretary of State regard that as irresponsible, and was his Department involved in putting that press release out to that newspaper, whose Armageddon-type projections panicked people in London and beyond?

Alan Johnson: That was irresponsible, but as I have said before, the media's response has generally been responsible. That was an exception and, to its credit, the  Evening Standard has apologised in advertisements throughout London.
	We do not know enough about the virus yet. It is important to note that countries in the southern hemisphere are entering their flu season, which may mean that the disease gains a firmer global foothold during our summer period. Past flu pandemics in the UK have been light in the summer with an increase in cases in the winter. It is possible, therefore, that there will be a second wave of the virus in the autumn.
	We have yet to see sustained transmission within communities in the UKthat is to say, a significant number of cases between people who have no obvious connection to each other. We have one so-called de novo case, where someone has developed the disease apparently without being exposed to any close contacts who have the virus. The containment strategy that we have adoptedsupplying antivirals as a preventive measure both to those who develop the disease and to their close contacts, and in certain circumstances closing schools, where disease can spread particularly rapidlyis effective in that it is delaying the spread of the disease, and buying valuable time.
	It is unlikely that we can prevent a more widespread outbreak indefinitely. But while the number of people developing this disease will certainly rise over the coming weeks, we do not expect to have to move from containment to mitigation for several weeks. None the less, everyone needs to be prepared for the next stage, in which the outbreak can no longer be contained and has spread more widely.
	There are three aspects that I want to touch on today. First, as I explained to the House in my statement a week ago, when the number of cases increases beyond a certain level, we will have to keep under review to what extent we supply antivirals prophylacticallyin the first instance supplying them only to immediate family and household members and, on a post-exposure basis, to health and social care workers, rather than to all contacts.

Vincent Cable: Has the Secretary of State considered the special case of cabin crew of airlines travelling to and from the highly affected regions? They operate in a very unhealthy environment, and the airlines, especially BA, will not at present participate in prophylactic schemes. Can he give us some guidance on that?

Alan Johnson: My understanding is that airlines are prepared to give their staff antivirals. They are part of the employer groups to which we talk all the time through the business advisory group on the pandemic. They tell us that they are seeking to do so post-exposure and if any of their cabin staff are symptomatic. There are good occupational health systems in place. If the hon. Gentleman believes that that is not the case with some airlines I would be grateful if he could let me know, so that we can talk to the people concerned.

Andrew Lansley: On that point, the Secretary of State will recall that on 27 April, when he made his first statement on the issue, I asked about people who necessarily had to travel to infected areas. One might argue that that now includes such a wide areaincluding the USthat any measures are impractical, but it is difficult for those travelling to Mexico City, for example, to access Tamiflu, even on a private prescription. Does the Secretary of State have any measures in mind to allow modest access to the Government's stockpile for people who have to make such journeys?

Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman's sense of the stage that we have reached is right. However, such a proposal might still be pertinent for Mexico, where there have been the most fatalities. I shall look into that. It has not been raised as an issue in the wider discussions that we have had with people who are in this situation, but I know that the hon. Gentleman has raised it before. It is a valid point.
	We would expect to move away from this containment phase to a mitigation phase only when it became apparent that there was sustained community transmission at a level that made containment futile.
	My second point is that there are steps that people should be taking now so that they are fully prepared for the next stage. The principal objective is to avoid those who are symptomatic spreading the illness further by continuing to move around the community. Everyone should think about identifying what we have termed as flu friendsneighbours, friends or relatives who live nearby and who can pick up medication and food for those who develop the disease so that they can avoid leaving the house and spreading the virus further. We should also all be thinking about friends, neighbours and family members who live on their own, and how we can best help them should they fall ill. Primary care trusts are already identifying patients they know to be vulnerable and making sure that they have someone who can help them.
	An essential element of the mitigation phase will be a system for ordering and distributing antivirals. As I explained in my statement last Thursday, the flu line will be ready in the autumn. It is a ground-breaking system and the first of its kind in the world. It will be able to assess people via either the internet or telephone, it will be able to co-ordinate the distribution of antivirals and it will be fully plugged in to local health services. It will have the capacity to cope with the huge surges in demand that are likely if the virus becomes more widespread. It will have been thoroughly tested so that staff, patients and the public can have full confidence in its efficacy.
	If we need to move from containment to mitigation before the flu line is ready, we will need to have arrangements in place that enable those who develop the disease to get treatment as quickly and effectively as possible without unnecessarily exposing more people to the virus. In addition, local health services will need to be able to respond to people's everyday health needs, as well as concentrating their efforts on providing specialist support to those who develop this strain of flu and are severely affected, and those who have underlying complications that make them particularly vulnerable.
	The interim service that we expect to have ready shortly will consist of a phone service that the public can access through a single 0800 number, and a supporting website application. That will mean that people can have their symptoms assessed either over the phone or online. Those symptoms will be checked against an algorithma list of the key symptoms and factors that determine whether the patient in question has been exposed to the infection. This is a system similar to NHS Direct, which is currently used by millions of people every year.
	If it is established that someone has developed swine flu, they will be issued with an authorisation number that they will then need to access antivirals. Their go-betweentheir flu friendwill then take that authorisation number to their nearest collection point to obtain the antivirals. That system is being thoroughly tested over the next few days, and we expect the online aspect of it to be fully operational as soon as it is neededwithin a week if necessary.

Andrew Lansley: The Secretary of State says that the flu line might be available in the intended form in the autumn, but the deputy director of national influenza-pandemic preparedness told the Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology in March that it would be available in May. It is now May, and we have been told that it will not be available until the autumn. Will the Secretary of State explain?

Alan Johnson: I think that the director concerned would say that that was an over-optimistic assessment. It is a very complicated system. There was a need to ensure that it was tested thoroughly and that we did not bring it into use before it had been rigorously tested, although we could have done so in this particular pandemic. As I have said to the House before, I believe that it is best to have that system ready to come online in the autumn and to have something available. We might not need it until the autumnwe might not move to a mitigation phase by that time or be at the level of mitigation that would mean that such a distribution system would be necessary. I am confident that once the flu line is up and running it will do what it says on the tin, and will do everything that we have planned for it to do.
	Finally, I want to update the House on our work to secure a vaccine. The best protection we can offer people is vaccination, because by giving people some form of immunity to the virus, even at a low level, we would achieve a significant reduction in the severity of any pandemic and, in particular, in the number of deaths or serious complications. We are now much closer to obtaining a vaccine. British scientists working for the Health Protection Agency in Colindale have already identified the genetic fingerprint of the virus. The National Institute for Biological Standards and Control in Potters Bar has now taken that isolate and is developing it into a vaccine strain.
	It is a long journey from identifying the virus to making a vaccine available. It is our intention to acquire sufficient stocks to vaccinate the entire UK population. We have advance purchase agreements with manufacturers that will be activated if the World Health Organisation moves to phase 6that is, if it declares a pandemic. We are still at phase 5 at the moment. However, we have always known that it might take four to six months before a matching vaccine becomes available, and more than a year before it can be manufactured in sufficient quantities for the entire population, given that international demand will be high.

Mark Field: Given the delay that the Secretary of State has mentioned, can he give the House some historical indication of how quickly phase 5 turns into a phase 6 pandemic? I appreciate that we are dealing with a unique sort of influenza, but can he give some indication of whether the four to six-month delay to which he refers might be overtaken by events? When we move to a phase 6 pandemic, we need to ensure that we have gone through this phase in such a way that we will be able to mitigate at the earliest opportunity.

Alan Johnson: I cannot give any indication of that. Phase 5 means that a pandemic is imminentit does not mean that it is inevitable. There is no historical precedent for how long we are likely to stay at phase 5. The WHO meets in Geneva at the weekend and it might decide then to move to phase 6. My feeling is that it will not and that it will be a little while yet. Nevertheless, I believe that we will get to phase 6, but I cannot give any indication of the timing.

Evan Harris: Will the Secretary of State clarify whether the delay is caused by scientists all around the world going flat out to devise a vaccine, or perhaps it lies in the production of the vaccine once it has been designed, because it takes so long when we use an egg-based system? Are there new systems that mean that once we get the vaccine and manufacturers allocate capacity to itif that is the decisionit will be available, at least for the countries that buy it?

Alan Johnson: It is a mixture of the last two points. It takes a long time to produce the vaccine. We have one contract for an egg-based vaccine and another for a cell-based vaccine with Baxter. Getting the virus is a labour-intensive system. It is not like the identification; that bit has been done, but the next bit is what takes a long time. Manufacturers need to obtain sufficient quantities to manufacture, and the manufacturing then takes a long time. Given that countries in every part of the world are entitled to a proportion of the vaccineour advance purchase agreement is good, and other countries have advanced purchase agreements, tooit would be wrong for 100 per cent. of it to be coming to the UK while people were dying in other countries.
	For all those reasons, it is important to be clear to Parliament. Some of the commentary that I have heard has mixed up our saying that we will not begin to have this vaccine ready for four, five or six months with a belief that it will be ready for 100 per cent. of the population within that time scale. Our national framework always set a period of between 60 and 79 weeks for completion of the process for 100 per cent. of the population, but we are currently in negotiation with manufacturers to see whether we can obtain early supplies at this pre-pandemic phase. We hope that that will enable us to vaccinate front-line health and social care staff and vulnerable groups who prove particularly susceptible to infection, before a predicted second wave hits.

Robert Syms: On a related point, I know that masks have been ordered for NHS staff, but are there any plans to distribute them more widely? What impact do they have? When there were problems in the far east, one saw members of the public wearing masks on trains and so on. Secondly, what about hand wash? I notice that some London schools are asking parents to wash their hands as they go in and out. Is that effective? What are the Government's views on that?

Alan Johnson: We have discussed face masks before, and we are ordering 226 million surgical face masks that are coated and have a protector, as well as 34 million respirators. They are for front-line NHS and adult social care staff, not for the general public. As we have said before, the WHO and all the relevant experts have made it clear that it is fairly futile for people simply to put a strip of cloth over their mouths; indeed, that may even be counterproductive, because it can cause people to believe that other safeguards need not apply.
	That leads me to the hon. Gentleman's second question about basic hygiene. Hand washing is probably the most crucial part of dealing with this infection.

Andrew Lansley: The Secretary of State said that 226 million face masks had been ordered, but when and how will they be supplied? Does the Department have some stockpiled? The normal use is 31 million a year, so there is a big difference between the target and what we have. Secondly, the Department's guidance on face masks made it clear that there is no evidence that they do much good when used by the general publicbut the exception to that involved infected people who are shedding the virus. The guidance suggested that they should wear a mask if they have to leave home, because that would reduce the risk of other people being infected by the virus that they emit.

Alan Johnson: We do have stock from some suppliers, and the first supplies are due to go to the NHS this weekend. The company manufacturing the product has done extremely well, and we are expecting something like 20 million masks to be available every month. I shall check the precise figure, but that is what I recall. The total will also ramp up over time, so we are expecting our order to come through pretty quickly.
	The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) is absolutely right about the guidance on masks. Our supplies will be focused on front-line NHS and adult social care staff, but other people too would benefit from wearing them. They include those in the categories that he described, as well as those who for other reasons will be in close proximity to symptomatic patients.
	We cannot move to a pandemic-specific vaccine and trigger our advance purchase agreements until there is a pandemic, and, as has been noted, we do not know for how long we will be at phase 5 as a precursor to phase 6. If a pandemic is declared, manufacturers would be expected to switch from production of the seasonal flu vaccine to a pandemic vaccine.
	Our ambition is to secure a swine flu vaccine without jeopardising our supply of the seasonal flu vaccine. It seems likely at this stage that manufacturers can complete the production for this winter over the next month or so, and have that ready before capacity is switched entirely to the production of swine flu vaccine.

John Mason: Will the Secretary of State clarify what he means by securing and purchasing early supplies of vaccine? Does that mean that we are somehow jumping the queue? My colleague in Edinburgh said the same thing this morning.

Alan Johnson: We are not jumping the queue, and the discussions are still going on. They are commercially sensitive, but although we cannot access our APAs until we are at phase 6, we have an opportunity to make some progress before the pandemic takes hold. We are exploring how much we can produce in that period, and other countries will be doing the same. It seemed sensible to us to see what we can do, rather just waiting to activate the APAs. It is by no means certain that we will be successful, but it seems the proper thing to do, and I shall say a little more about that in a second.
	Understandably, hon. Members will want to know whether a vaccine that is developed today, based on what we currently know about the virus, will be effective if the virus mutates. The immunologists, virologists and epidemiologists who advise the chief scientist and the Health Protection Agency are very clear on this point. Even on their most pessimistic estimatesthat is, if the vaccine were to give only a low level of protectionthat would significantly dampen the virus's severity and its ability to spread, and reduce the possibility of people developing complications.
	The unanimous advice of the scientists is that we should move as quickly as we can to get as much vaccine as we can at this stage. That is what we are attempting to do, although we are not trying to deny other people the chance to get the vaccine as well.

Evan Harris: I fully support the Secretary of State's basing his decisions on scientific advice. The Phillips report showed how important such advice is, but does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, in a few aspects of vaccination policy, there will also be questions of judgment that go beyond scientific advice on the ethics? One such questionabout jumping the queuehas been raised already, but others involve exactly who gets the vaccine first, and how we deal with supplies in the private sector. Although the answers to those questions can be informed by Government policy to an extent, I hope that he will accept that the wider House beyond the Front-Bench teams should be engaged, as well as civil society. We need to have those debates now, before the vaccines become necessary and the arguments rage, because that gives us a better chance of achieving consensus.

Alan Johnson: I have no problem with such ethical debates taking place. When a pandemic is declared, the whole system and all the manufacturing capacity must in effect be put at the service of the WHO, because that is how we can ensure a proper spread of vaccine. That is the important ethical point at this stage.
	No single action will prevent this outbreak from becoming more widespread, but we can continue to contain the virus, using antivirals as a prophylaxis. We can make sure we have the drugs that we need to treat the virus and any complications that occur, and we can begin to vaccinate the whole of the population as soon as possible. We can keep people informed and enable them to protect themselves and their families. Finally, we can be thankful for our NHS and the people who work in it and with it. Throughout its history, and in the most critical situations, it has proved its ability to rise to any occasion.
	Although the threat of a pandemic is unlikely to diminish in the weeks and months ahead, we can be reassured that our preparations are thorough and that our actions in dealing with this infection are in the hands of dedicated professionals. I commend the motion to the House.

Andrew Lansley: May I first thank the Secretary of the State for Health and the Government for responding positively to our suggestion that we have a debate? Hopefully, it is not premature; we entirely understand all the uncertainties that remain. In truth, it is less than a month since the circulation of the virus was first identified to the World Health Organisation, so there will be uncertainties about the nature of the virus, its characteristics, how it affects humans and what we should do about it. However, it is a good time to consider how we should approach the issue, particularly with regard to vaccines, not least because the strategy is beginning to take shape. I agree with the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), who was in the Chamber earlier, that it is also a good time to discuss prioritisation, use of resources and the ethical issues that might emerge from that if there were to be a substantial spread of the virus in the months ahead.
	May I echo what the Secretary of State said about our thanks to the NHS? I thank not only NHS staff generally but, through him, those working in the Department of Health and the Health Protection Agency. In particular, the staff in pathology laboratories in heath protection units across the country have literally worked 24/7 on very large numbers of suspected cases. I know that we are dealing with 72 confirmed cases, but they have now dealt with perhaps tens of thousands of suspected cases, and pushing those cases very rapidly through the system has been a tremendous burden on them.

Robert Syms: I know that a lot of the technical staff in the NHS who work for pathology labs have, in the past, felt a little under-appreciated, in terms of pay and conditions. Given that they are doing an excellent job, it might in future be worth reflecting on the fact that when a doctor decides to do a test, it is actually somebody in a pathology lab who carries it out.

Andrew Lansley: Since my father was, 30-something years ago, chairman of the Institute of Biomedical Sciences, I am sure that biomedical scientists will not be least among those who will appreciate what my hon. Friend says on that matter.
	A debate gives us an opportunity to discuss some of the issues, as distinct from asking questions, as we have been able to do after the statements that the Secretary of State has kindly made. In particular, as we begin to discuss the nature of the virus and how it might spread, there has been a tendency on the part of many in the media to assume that even though the flu that we are discussing is very much milder than the 1918 flu, the pattern of its impact will be like that of the 1918 flu. In 1918, of course, there was an initial, relatively mild spread, in which no very large proportion of the population was affected. About three months later, there was a severe impact, with large numbers of cases and a very high fatality rate. In early 1919, there was a third wave. The assumption is that, somehow, it must happen like that.
	It is important for us to bear it in mind that in 1976 in north America an H1N1 virus circulated. It was not particularly severe. It did not have a clinical attack rate on the scale of that in 1918. Quite properly, the American Administration at the time developed a vaccine, but in the expectation that the virus would recur in a second wave, in the way it had done in 1918, they vaccinated the whole population, which, as it turned out, was an error; they should not have done so. There were significant side effects. There was not a second wave. Clearly, with the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that the proper public health response would have been to acquire the vaccineto stockpile itand then to see whether there was an intimation that a second wave was coming. I hope that the Secretary of State does not dissent from that.
	That is not to say that we necessarily know what the strategy needs to be, but it is important that we do not make an assumption at this point about the future profile of the spread of the virus. For that matter, we do not know whether there will be sustained transmission in other countries. Clearly, from Mexico to America, between, it turns out, the middle of February to the middle of April, there were significant opportunities for the virus to spread from Mexico to America, which made it very difficult for the Americans to achieve containment. However, in many other countries, we are achieving containment. If we can continue to do so, we may find that we can delay phase 6 until we have made dramatic progress in the development of a vaccine. That is important to bear in mind.
	I confess that this is entirely speculative, but when one looks at the genetic make-up of the virusas I know will be done, not least in Mill Hilland compares it to viruses in the past, it is interesting to see that it emerged in north America, and that H1N1 in 1976 was, to some extent, related to the outbreak in 1918 in a very limited way. It is also interesting that in Mexico, the virus has impacted on younger adults. Arguably, it is possible that some older adults in Mexico had some vestigial immunity from exposure to it in 1976. It may or may not bear some genetic relationship to the H1N1 that circulated in 1976, but if it does, that would point to it being less likely to be virulent and severe than was originally feared when it first emerged.
	The Secretary of State and I share a view about how to respond to this matter. I score no points on this. The Opposition have raised issues with Ministers on 77 occasions since June 2004, and we have talked to Ministers repeatedly, including the Secretary of State's predecessors, about the importance of pandemic preparednessadmittedly in the context of H5N1, which would be a major threat. Issues such as the antiviral stockpile, the stockpile of face masks, and the need for critical care capacity and for an advanced purchase contract have all been the subject of our questions to and responses from Ministers.
	My only reservation about Britain's preparedness was that the extension of the antiviral stockpile could have been initiated sooner, rather than when H1N1 emerged in Mexico. Clearly there is the issue with the national flu line, which I asked the Secretary of State about, and the Government would have achieved that sooner had it been possible to do so. As for stockpiling face masks and gloves, the French bought 200 million, from recollection, in about the latter part of 2005, so there is a gap between what we were asking about and what has been achieved. None the less, we are among the best prepared countries in the world, and I will return to what that might mean in terms of our obligations in relation to other countries.
	I want to raise about half a dozen points, both to express a view and to see whether the Minister can add anything beyond what the Secretary of State has already said when she replies. The Secretary of State knows the Opposition's view on vaccine availability, because he has kindly involved us in conversations about it from time to time. By way of a brief detour, I should say we must not get this out of proportion. The Imperial college modelling talked about a central estimate of a 30 per cent. clinical attack rate, and a 0.4 per cent. fatality rate, but that was on a global basis. The virus may spread to a quarter or more of the British population in the longer term, but we have good reasons at the momentnot least because in America there have been just three fatalities compared with more than 3,000 confirmed casesto hope that the fatality rate in this regard in a developed health economy will be low, and barely more than for seasonal flu. That being the case, it does not suggest that it is in the interests of a country such as Britain for seasonal flu vaccine production to be diverted at this point to pandemic flu vaccine production. Our view, which I expressed to the Secretary of State earlier in the week, is that we would certainly support the continuation of seasonal flu vaccine production, not least because we are probably only about two months away from the point at which, in a normal process, availability its would have been achieved. That gives us the basis on which we could move on towards pandemic vaccine production immediately.
	We would support the securing of an additional supply of a vaccine for the novel H1N1 virus on a pre-pandemic basis in parallel with seasonal flu vaccine production if that is possible, as the Secretary of State says. If the seed strain is available in a matter of days, we may infer that, probably by the end of September, supplies of a vaccine would, if necessary, begin to become available for health care workers and others who are most likely to be at risk. The chances are that any second wave would be initiated by an event such as the return of children to schoolschools tend to be the so-called super-spreaders and the virus tends to spread faster among young people, meaning that it could be transmitted through the population.

Robert Syms: In recent years, there has been a lot of emphasis on GP surgeries writing to people on their lists to ask that they be vaccinated from ordinary flu. What advice ought the Government give to GPs about communicating with people who use their surgeries? Should surgeries hold back, or should they go on with the traditional campaign, which has increased the rate of vaccination quite substantially?

Andrew Lansley: I understand my hon. Friend's point. My answerI hope the Secretary of State agreesis that we would normally expect to invite people to come for seasonal flu vaccine in late September or early October, and I see no reason why we should do differently. The period between now and then gives us the opportunity to learn far more about the nature of H1N1 and whom it is likely to impact.
	It is important to remember that we may be dealing with very different kinds of flu. Obviously, seasonal flu tends to have an impact particularly on older people, which is why they are summoned for seasonal flu vaccination, but H1N1 has an impact on younger adults, so by late autumn we may be dealing with different vaccination programmes with different population groups being targeted as priorities.
	To be absolutely clear about the use of the antiviral stockpile, I think we agree that for the time being, we are devoted to containment, which requires post-exposure prophylaxis, meaning that everyone who is known to have come into contact with the virus should get the antivirals. We should sustain that for as long as we know that containment stands a chance of success. However, it is important for the public to know something about the trigger for shifting from a strategy of containment to one of mitigation. For example, when we reach 200 cases of seasonal flu per 100,000 population in a weekthat is on the Royal College of General Practitioners flu linewe say that the virus is circulating in the community. Are we talking about a similar or a lower number of cases in relation to the novel H1N1 virus? Are we talking about the point at which significant numbers of people are confirmed as having the virus but we cannot identify how they contracted it? What sort of volumes are we talking about? What are the triggers to shift from containment to mitigation?
	Once we are in mitigation, I cannot see, given what we know about our access to antivirals now and for the rest of the year, why we should not sustain a policy of household prophylaxis to support families by reducing the impact, and post-exposure prophylaxis for health and social care workers to keep them at work. That will not stop people getting flu, but it may well mean that large numbers of people find they are affected very little. They can then be vaccinated which, in the long run, will reduce the number of people who have to be hospitalised or, indeed, the numbers who die.
	The Secretary of State did not talk about school closures, but I should like to inquire whether the Government wish to have a debate on the matter. The Americans have moved quite quickly from a policy of closing a school at the point when a case is confirmed in the school to a policy of not closing schools but carrying on, because the economic detriment is greater than the benefit to be derived from school closure and the virus is now assumed to be circulating generally in the population in America. Those are difficult judgments, because one is balancing, on the one hand, the pace of spread of a virus with a health impact on the population against, on the other, the economic, educational and other impacts of maintaining a policy of school closures. The Americans have chosen the path of stopping automatic school closures quite quickly. Clearly, in our present circumstances, it is right for us to implement school closures where cases are confirmed. The Government's contingency plan does not contemplate moving away from a closure policy, but given the American experience and the nature of the virus, is it not time for us to think about and discuss such a move?

Robert Syms: Whose decision is it to close a school? Is it the Department of Health, the chief executive of the local authority, the education authority or an independent body? Who decides and what is the policy?

Andrew Lansley: The decision is taken by the head teacher and governors of a school, but essentially the head teacher, on the advice of the health protection unit. My assumption is that if we were experiencing a pandemic involving a virus with very severe effects, it would be possible for local education authorities to take a general decision, which clearly they would do based on advice from the chief medical officer and the Government. However, I do not think that we are contemplating anything of that nature; at present, the decisions are made by schools. I do not anticipate head teachers, where they have a confirmed case and where the health protection unit is pursuing a containment strategy, would do anything other than close the school, for at least a week and perhaps, it could be argued, for a little longer.
	I should be grateful for further opportunities to discuss the policy and what the modelling might tell us about the benefits and costs of a different strategy on school closures. The original scientific modelling of a pandemic suggests that a school closure strategy with prophylaxis would have a significant benefit, but of course that modelling related to a virus that probably had more severe effects than the one we are dealing with now.
	We have not previously raised this in detail with Ministers, because it seemed premature to do so, but given what the Imperial college modelling suggests about the impact of the virus, I think it is appropriate to do so now. The Americans have a 5 per cent. hospitalisation rate, so although they are handling the virus successfully, not all victims are staying at home. Our critical care capacity compared with that in other countries is therefore an important matter for us. I hope that the Minister of State will be able to tell us what measures the Government have taken to support additional critical care capacityfor example, ensuring additional ventilators are available.
	The latest data on adult critical care services in a number of the most developed health economies are found in the Society of Critical Care Medicine's 2008 study. It sets out the number of adult intensive beds per 100,000 peoplethat is the relative measure. France has 9.3 per 100,000, Canada 13.5, the Netherlands 8.4, Spain 8.2 and the United Kingdom 3.5. The House will note the apparent substantial disparity in the availability of critical care capacity in this country and in many other countries.
	Anyone who has visited critical care units recently will know that they are generally full. The ethical and prioritisation impacts of a pandemic are therefore likely be encountered rather faster in this country than in many others. Fairly quickly, we will have to turn beds that would otherwise be occupied by elective patients into beds where there is some degree of high-dependency support for patients suffering the complications of flu, because we do not have spare capacity in our critical care units.
	My last point, which we have discussed during each statement that the Secretary of State has made, is about what we can and should doalongside our primary responsibility to ensure that Britain is as well prepared as it can be for a pandemicto support other countries. The Secretary of State will know that the Department for International Development has made additional money available to support the relevant UN unit and 5 million in special support to the World Health Organisation. When the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo), replies, however, will she say some more about our approach as time goes on, not just as a contributor of financial support to other countries, but in respect of critical resources, particularly antiviral stockpiles and vaccines, whenlater in the year, perhapswe know that we are relatively secure against the impact of the virus while other countries may be anything but, having neither antivirals nor vaccines, poor surveillance and limited health care resources?
	There are relatively few cases in Africa, but the WHO in Africa is already only too aware of the risk. To add to the risk, southern Africa in particular has large immune-compromised populations as a result of HIV. There may come a time, if the virus were to spread as a pandemic, when we have to make tough ethical decisions about the proper use of our stockpiled resources for the greater good, rather than for pure self-interest. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving us a further update and enabling a discussion of the issues, and I look forward to the right hon. Lady's response.

John McDonnell: I shall briefly raise some constituency concerns about the issue. I must apologise, however, because I am supposed to be chairing another meeting so, although I shall try to return for the ministerial response, if I cannot, I look forward to reading  Hansard or any correspondence that I receive.
	With Heathrow in my constituency, there is a particular concern about the vulnerability of its staff and the wider community. It is the largest airport in the country, so, naturally, it is potentially the country's largest entrance point for virus carriers. Concerns have been raised about cabin staff, but the issue goes wider than that, because anyone entering the country will come into contact with other passengers, cabin staff, immigration officers and staff in the wider terminal. Our concerns are that the infection could spread to the wider community and place demands on our local services.
	I should welcome information, advice and assurances about the procedures that have been established to deal specifically with ports of entry. In particular, I should like assurances about the dissemination of information to staff, their training to spot the factors that they must consider regarding passengers, including the symptoms that passengers report, and the advice that staff relay to passengers about the actions that they should take. The issue is about ensuring that not just cabin staff, but a wide range of staff are properly informed and advised.
	In addition, has there been any consideration about additional protection for staff members at ports of entry? There have been discussions about masks, but it is also important to bear in mind that, apart from health staff and others, staff at airports may need priority vaccination.
	I am also concerned to secure assurances about the resourcing of Heathrow's health unit, because, over the years, I have made representations about its funding. The unit now comes under the Health Protection Agency, and the Government have allocated additional investment over the years, so I hope that we have resolved many of those past complaints. However, there have been some media reports about under-resourcing at the health unit at Heathrow. I would welcome assurances on that and on what discussions and consultations are taking place, particularly with staff at the unit, about the need for additional resources to cater for the virus.
	The other issue for me is that if a carrier infects members of staff at Heathrow, they will in turn infect the wider local community. I welcome assurances that the situation is to be specifically monitored in my area. If we find higher incidences of infection there, what resources will there be for the local primary care trust and, in particular, for Hillingdon hospital? Over the years, the hospital has played a vital role in responding to passengers' health needs as those needs are identified at Heathrow; if a passenger becomes particularly ill, Hillingdon hospital will normally deal with them.
	There might, however, be a wider incidence of infection among the local community as a result of Heathrow staff's vulnerability, so I would welcome information about what discussions have taken place with the primary care trust and Hillingdon hospital trust about planning for that situation and the additional resources required. The issue is not about raising fears and anxieties among the local community, but about reassuring airport workers that their concerns are being taken into account and that plans and consultations are taking place to ensure that they are properly protected. The wider community will also be protected as a result of such efforts.
	I am not yet aware of the various structures that have been put in place. The Secretary of State referred to industry discussions; I would welcome further information on those and his assessment of how the industry and the individual companies are responding to their discussions with the Government. I am particularly interested in the response from the local primary care trust and Hillingdon hospital itself. I should like to know about what additional briefings have been provided to my local general practitioners. As I said, I do not mean to raise anxieties, but Heathrow is the largest point of entry so there is a particular vulnerability. I would welcome assurances that the issue was being specifically addressed.
	Heathrow has learned lessons from various health incidents, and that has enabled the development of a robust system that has stood the test of time. However, our anxieties about the scale of the potential pandemic mean that we in the local area need to be even more assured that the Government have given attention to Heathrow, its role with regard to the virus and the additional resources which may be required and which the Government are willing to allocate.

Norman Lamb: I start by expressing my appreciation of the fact that this debate is taking place; it is an opportunity to discuss further the development of a potential flu pandemic. I join the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) in thanking the Secretary of State for updating us between the debates in Parliament; that is appreciated, and helpful from our point of view. Finally, I pass on my thanks and appreciation to national health service staffpathology staff, in particular; the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire also referred to them. They are working beyond the call of duty at the moment, and that is appreciated by all. The Secretary of State gave encouraging news about a pre-pandemic vaccine. That is an encouraging development.
	We face something of a difficulty at the moment in that this item has slipped off the news agenda, not only because other items relating to this place are rather dominating things, but because the prevalence and virulence of the flu has so far been slight. There is therefore a danger that we are lulled into a false sense of security and people start to say, What's all the fuss about? Hasn't there been an overreaction? People who have suffered from it have recovered very quickly. It is very importantthe Secretary of State made this clear, and I share his viewthat we maintain absolute focus on this, and get the message across to the public, in recognising that we do not know the implications or the extent to which the virulence will increase as the strain develops and potentially changes in character.
	I was struck by a recent BBC report about what is happening in the United States, which noted that there has been a significant increase in reported cases. The numbers have gone up by 600 since last Friday, and there have been 2,532 cases. As the Conservative spokesman said, the Americans are no longer closing schools because the disease is now recognised to be in the general community. The truth is, of course, that the American health system has no mechanism for controlling or monitoring the development of this epidemic. There are genuine concerns about its potentially spreading very rapidly from the US into Europe. Of course, the amount of travel between Europe and the US is vastly greater than that between Europe and Mexico, so we have to be prepared for a rapid advance.

Andrew Lansley: Before we leave what the hon. Gentleman says about America on the record, I think, having been in the control room at the Department of Health and Human Services in Washington and discussed with people how they would respond to a pandemic, that the Americans have all the resources and legal powers that are necessary for surveillance and counter-measures to respond to a public health impact. We should not confuse the limitations of access to American medicine with limitations in the American response to public health demands.

Norman Lamb: I hear the hon. Gentleman's reassurance, but the views that I have heard expressed do not match his confidence about the American capacity to spread messages and to ensure similar concerted action to our production of a national plan that can then be implemented at all local levels. He may be right, but concern is being expressed that the system in the US makes things more difficult.
	If there is to be a rapid increase in the number of cases in the US, what is the Secretary of State's advice for people travelling therethey may be planning holidays nowabout whether to go and what precautions they should take when they get there? A report that appeared in  The New York Times a couple of days ago refers to a leading American infectious disease expert who has been in Mexico helping the Mexicans to tackle the swine flu outbreak and learning the lessons from that. It reports that many people who are suffering from the disease appear to be showing no symptoms of fever, which makes screening much more difficult and increases the difficulty of controlling it. I am not sure whether the Secretary of State and the authorities in this country are fully aware of what is being discovered in Mexico, but it is critical that we rapidly learn the lessons from that. According to the report, half those with the milder cases did not at any stage develop fever.
	It is also reported that 12 per cent. of patients in two Mexican hospitals are suffering from diarrhoea as one of the symptoms of their condition together with respiratory problems. The point is made in the article that there are implications for infection control, particularly in poorer countries, if diarrhoea is one of the symptoms that emerges from this strain. The advice that is reported is that stools should be tested for the presence of swine virus. When she winds up the debate, will the Minister of State say whether any such advice is coming across to the Health Protection Agency? There has been no reference so far to such testing, so has that been properly monitored?
	It is also reported in the article that the expert doctor from the United States, Dr. Wenzel, suggests that there should be testing to determine whether there are people without symptoms who are still carrying the virus. The Secretary of State mentioned one case in the UK of someone who has had a confirmed diagnosis but who has had no apparent contact with anyone who has suffered from the condition. Is a possible explanation that people carrying the virus may not be showing any symptoms? That would make control much more difficult. It is also reported that an unusual feature of the Mexican epidemic is that there are apparently five different influenza viruses circulating at the same time, making it much more difficult to plan and to judge how the swine flu virus will develop.
	All the things that I have mentioned from the article are happening in Mexico. Will the Minister comment on the international learning process to ensure that what we are finding out from Mexico is being fed into public health messages in this country, and that the appropriate advice is being disseminated?
	It is also reported that pneumonia rates at one hospital were at 120 a week, compared with an average of about 20 a week. That is clear evidence of the complications that can emerge from flu, which the Secretary of State has previously mentioned. That significant increase in pneumonia cases reinforces the importance of preparedness for such complications. Will the Minister comment on the development of the purchase of antibiotics? I know that the Secretary of State has addressed that, but I should like to know where we have got to on that.
	The final, really important, point in the report is that Mexican doctors have apparently activated a programme to allay the anxieties of health staff. The expert from the United States commented that that matter had not been sufficiently addressed in the US. It is critical to remember that there will be health and social care staff who are extremely anxious about their own health and family circumstances. The programme has been activated to provide information to staff, a hotline, psychological supportthat is criticaland medical examinations. I am sure that that is part of the planning process, but can the Minister reassure us that the matter is fully recognised as an important priority?
	My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) mentioned BA cabin crew, and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) raised concerns about both cabin crew and airport staff. The reports that my hon. Friend has had suggest that cabin crew working on the route between Heathrow and Mexico City have not been receiving the duty of care from BA that one might expect. It is worth making the point that the circumstances have provided a potential profit for BA. I saw a report that single tickets from Mexico City to Heathrow are being sold at $4,000 each. There is a premium in getting out of Mexico

John McDonnell: One-way ticket.

Norman Lamb: I note the hon. Gentleman's comment. BA has been making good money out of the situation, but BA staff have been anxious about whether they are being sufficiently protected. Professor John Oxford has expressed surprise that BA has not ensured that all cabin crew are given Tamiflu. He makes the point that toilets on board on aircraft are the focus for infection during a flight, because people sneeze, then visit the toilet, and the infection gets on to handles, taps and so on. In the Minister's closing remarks, will she confirm the specific advice being given by the Health Protection Agency to airlines to ensure that every step is taken to protect the health and safety of cabin crew and passengers on flights, particularly those flying between heavily infected areas and the UK?

Robert Syms: The rate at which cabin air conditioning works is also an issue. When smoking was allowed on flights, the rate had to be very high, but it is turned down now that smoking is not allowed. Given the relationship between the air conditioning units and fuel, that means more germs can circulate. What advice are the Government giving to airlines?

Norman Lamb: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We all know that flights are a perfect breeding ground for infections, and it is important to take every step to ensure that all airlines meet the highest possible standards, and that they meet their duty of care to their staff and passengers. I have had reports that different airlines are responding differently, but the same high standards should apply to all airlines, so that all staff are protected.
	Critically, the Treasury appears to have delayed the implementation of the flu line for some seven months. Under freedom of information legislation, I am seeking further documentation about why the implementation has taken so long. From newspaper reports and board minutes, we know that the NHS Direct board was getting increasingly frustrated by the apparent delays at the Treasury. Will the Minister comment on the costs incurred from the temporary arrangements that will apply until the flu line proper is in place?
	The BMA makes the point that some primary care trusts are setting up their own arrangements for local flu lines. It comments that long waiting times have been experienced by people calling NHS Direct. One case was reported of a wait of eight hours, which seems fairly incredible, but that is what the BMA reports. Is there sufficient co-ordination? If local flu lines are set up at the same time as the Government introduce temporary arrangements nationally, we need to ensure that everyone knows which line to use. The BMA also states:
	The publication of the 'Manual Flu Line Algorithm' is regarded as crucial to ensure consistent messages and avoid postcode variation.
	Will the Minister also deal with that point?
	On Tamiflu, the BMA says:
	Formal notification that antivirals will all be distributed centrally rather than through GPs or pharmacists is still awaited.
	Will the Minister clarify the position on that? It also says that there is a need for clarity on distribution protocols. It would be helpful if we could hear from her on that point too.
	Last weekend, newspaper reports said that primary care trusts across the country had been making variable progress on implementing plans. The BMA complains that GPs in some areas have not been involved in the planning process locally. The reports suggested that the Department of Health was refusing to publish details of the state of preparedness of primary care trusts around the country. It seems to me that publication of where every PCT has got to would help to concentrate minds and ensure that the laggards get up to the state of preparedness of the best. I ask the Minister to consider publishing where every PCT around the country has got to in its plans on preparing for the pandemic.
	The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire raised concern about critical care capacity. That has also been raised with me. I was told by the Royal College of General Practitioners that in the last two pandemics in this country, in 1957-58 and 1968-69, more people died of conditions other than flu. There was a higher excess mortality of people suffering from other conditions who were displaced from hospital by those who went there because of the flu pandemic. I suspect many people do not recognise that. It reinforces the absolute importance of having clear guidelines on prioritisation of cases for hospital treatment during a pandemic. The communication of those guidelines to the general public is critical. There will be many cases in which people are due to go into hospitalthey may well have a planned operationbut are told that they cannot because the hospital is full as a result of the flu pandemic. That will cause a great deal of anxiety for many people. The communication of that prioritisation is vital.
	The briefing by the British Red Cross highlights the importance of the voluntary sector and the role that it can play in supporting statutory services in dealing with the challenge of a flu pandemic. It makes the point that it is essential that all volunteers who are participating in any way in support of statutory services get treated in the same way as staff to ensure that they are protected, given that they are giving their time voluntarily to help. The British Red Cross also makes the point that many volunteers will prepare to go overseas during a pandemic to help to make a difference in the real hot spots. It says that it is important that those people get access to medication speedily so that they are protected.
	I have appreciated the opportunity to raise these issues. I recognise that the Minister may not be able to deal with all the concerns that I have highlighted, but perhaps she can respond in writing to those that she is unable to answer.

Robert Syms: I thank the Secretary of State for again updating the House on progress on this very serious matter. I am glad to note that when it comes to such matters the House can be constructive, we can make suggestions to the Government, and we can learn of preparations that I consider sensible. I think it is a case of so far so good, but as we know, it is still early days. I pay tribute, as others have done, to the staff of the national health service, who are working terribly hard, and to those who are working long hours in the pathology labs to deal with the crisis.
	I think that the national public information campaign is being run very well, and is having an impact. I presume that it will roll on in the coming weeks and months, and may be uprated if the profile of what is happening changes. It sends a very good message with regard to flu in general, and not least with regard to this very serious form of flu. However, I have a few concerns.
	It is easy for those who have bins in which to chuck paper handkerchiefs and somewhere to wash their hands, but if a pandemic does develop, we shall have to make an effort to provide better hand-washing facilities in public places. Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether it has been established that there are enough of the various soap products that people use to disinfect their hands as an alternative to ordinary hand washing. When I was at Euston station the other day I noticed that it costs 20p to go into the toilets, and I know that nowadays a number of other major rail centres charge people for using public facilities. I believe that that applies at Paddington station, for instance. I hope that the Government will consider allowing such charges to be waived in the short term if the situation deteriorates, so that people can have access to hand-washing facilities.
	We have already had an exchange about masks, and I understand the medical advice about them, but I think that ordering a lot more and distributing them widely would be a sensible precaution. Many people work in the public services. If someone does not turn up for work because they are ill at home, a police officer or local authority representative, for example, may have to ring the front doorbell and go in to see them. It is true that in the short term, the sight of people wearing masks on the tube will not do a great deal for the tourist trade. However, notwithstanding what was said by the Secretary of State, I think that if the pandemic becomes much more widespread, seeing people walking around wearing masks would be a good way of reminding others that there is a crisis, and that they need to take the sensible advice being issued and use a paper handkerchief, bin it, wash their hands, and generally conduct themselves very carefully.
	I have a few more questions for the Minister. So far, the scientific information is that the genetic make-up of the flu virus does not seem to be quite as virulent in north Americaor, indeed, hereas it is in Mexico. Is that related to diet, or to the general health levels in the population? We know that a number of drugs are available on the internet, such as Tamiflu and Relenza. If people do not take prescribed drugs but obtain them from the internet so that they are used more widely, there is a risk that a resistant strain of the virus will develop. Have the Government any plans to try to restrict online provision?
	Last week a useful leaflet about flu from the primary care trust was delivered in Bournemouth and Poole. We have heard a little about the swine flu information line; is there a plan for its capacity to be increased if the number of cases multiplies? As we have heard, in the event of a relatively rare occurrence it may be possible to get through on the line, but if thousands of people suddenly become infected, more phone lines and volunteers will be needed so that the service can be expanded rapidly rather than crashing. I welcome what the Secretary of State said about going online and setting up a website.
	I would like the Minister who responds to the debate to say a little more about the role of the national director of pandemic influenza preparedness. What meetings have taken place, and how is it envisaged that the role will unfold if a crisis develops?
	On the flu line, there is a difference between people phoning up about symptoms and decision makers trying to get sensible advice. In earlier exchanges, we talked about who was responsible for making decisions about whether to close a school, a place of work or a particular institution. I presume that the primary care trust would be the body to which people would refer at the local level. This is an interesting issue, however, because public health decisions will have to be made at various levels, and I wonder what the hierarchy of decision makers is. I presume that at the top will be the national director of pandemic influenza preparedness, or Richmond house, but what will be the local decision-making hierarchy in, for instance, Dorsetor around Heathrow, as we have heard about the special risks that that area of London faces? Who will be in charge? We must ensure that people make proper and informed decisions at all levels, so we do not get panic, but rather a response that is measured, proportionate and sensible.

John Gummer: I too would like the Minister to elaborate on that. We in Suffolk have an extremely good operation for dealing with crises, and I would like to know how that local hierarchy will fit into this situation. In the pastfor example, when we have had to deal with animal diseasesit has been hugely successful. I think the Minister will know that the Department congratulated Suffolk on what we did in the last epidemic, and we had to congratulate the Minister concerned for keeping us in touch. I wonder whether the same system will operate.

Robert Syms: That is a good point. I wonder whether there ought to be a chart setting out who is on top of the hierarchy and who takes decisions at various different stages. That would be particularly useful for Members, who could put it up on their wall, and there might also be relevant phone numbers for their area, so if a situation developed we would know who to talk to and who to refer people to. I suspect that if the swine flu emergency line has difficulties and PCTs are overwhelmed, people will phone up Members asking for their advice. It would be useful, therefore, if the Minister were to say a little more at the end of the debate about what we can have in our offices for our staff, so that we know who to go to, and to whom to refer people in our area if a situation develops.
	We must wait and see how the situation develops. History teaches us that these events can get very badI am thinking about the events of 1918and it is best to take the precautionary approach and to plan for the worst. I am pleased with the preparations that the Secretary of State for Health has taken so far, and I hope that we will get a little more information from the Minister at the conclusion of the debate. Let us keep our fingers crossed and hope that this is not as bad as some people think it will be.

John Mason: I appreciate having the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I also appreciate the fact that the Secretary of State has made previous statements on this subject.
	Perhaps unsurprisingly, I shall refer to Scotland in my speech. Scotland was very much the focus at the start of this outbreak, as the first two confirmed cases in the UK were in Scotland. I join other Members in expressing appreciation to NHS staff for acting rapidly and wisely in admitting the couple concerned to Monklands hospital and isolating them there. That helped to protect those peoplealthough, fortunately, their symptoms were not seriousand it also reassured the public that the matter was being taken seriously. It helped us across the UK to study that case and understand better what had happened and how it had happened, and issues such as contacts.
	It is worth noting in passing that Monklands hospital had previously been earmarked for closure, and one of the many good decisions of the current Scottish Government was to keep it open. I particularly wish to mention the way in which the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, Nicola Sturgeon, has been leading in the Scottish Government on this matter.
	Reference has been made to the booklet that has been widely distributed. One of the advantages of having two houses is that one gets two leaflets. As far as I can tell, the one distributed to my Glasgow flat some time ago is exactly the same as the one that I received last night in Lambethexcept that the Scottish paper seems to be of a slightly higher quality. This raises the question of whether we have a guarantee that all these good-quality leaflets have been distributed. I only got mine in Lambeth last night, and as that seems a little late I wonder whether everybody else has got one. I did think that they were sensitively produced, given that they detail what the UK Governmentsrather than just the UK Governmenthave done; again, full marks to the NHS and the Department of Health.
	I understand that, as of this morning, Scotland has five definite cases

Dawn Primarolo: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge in this House that we have a national health service that goes across the whole of the UK, and that the people in it are working in unison to protect all our citizens. I do not think that we should imply or make any asides to suggest that that is not happening.

John Mason: I thank the Minister for her intervention, and I agree with her. Indeed, the main point of my remarks is about the good relationship on this issue between the Governments of Scotland and the UK. Our respective countries are working extremely well on this matter, and I hope that that can be extended to other matters. We are allthose on the Government side and ourselves committed to the NHS, although there are some differences in how we view the way ahead for it. For example, I believe that the approach of no private GP practices in Scotland is fundamental to the future of the NHS, whereas a different view has been taken in England.
	I understand that further cases are being investigated in Greenock, which has led to the closure of a primary school and a nursery there. As I said, I wish to make my main remarks about the good relationship between Scotland and the UK on this matter. When a previous statement was made, the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (John Reid) asked about the relationship between Ministers in the two Governments and I asked about the relationship between the officials. We were both given very positive answers, and all that I have become aware of since then shows that that continues to be the case. For example, I understand that antibiotics are being procured by the Department of Health for the whole of the UK, and that as Scotland has a stockpile of some 9 million face masks, which is probably more than it needs at the moment, it has offered 1.45 million of those to England to help its supplies.
	I reckon that this is one of the many situations in which the Scottish and UK Governments seem to be working well together, and that is the way we want things to be. We do not want constant bickering, people picking fights or people putting party before country. The more responsibility the Scottish Parliament is given and the less dependent we are financially on Westminster handouts, the more likely it is that our two countries can have a mature and grown-up relationship. Of course England is the larger country and it is likely to have more experts on many subjects, be it health or whatever, but that does not prevent us from respecting each other as neighbours and working together on issues such as swine flu, which clearly is no respecter of international boundaries. Perhaps one of the good things that can come out of this episode is a good and strong relationship between our countries' respective health services. I very much hope that other Departments in the London Government will follow the lead of the Secretary of State for Health.
	One area in which England has been ahead of Scotland is in closing schools when there is an outbreak. I understand that the experience is that very early precautionary closure, such as occurred in Paignton, has been instrumental in disrupting the further spread of the virus. The topic has already been raised, and perhaps the Minister could confirm whether the advice continues to be that schools should be closed for seven days, whether there is some other optimum time, or whether we have to examine each case individually.
	I also understand that Health Ministers are working together to secure and purchase early supplies of vaccine. That sounds encouraging, and I hope that we will be kept updated when negotiations with manufacturers are concluded. As we are talking about vaccines, I understand that our Cabinet Secretary this morning pointed out that if a pandemic is declared, global demand for a vaccine will outstrip the capacity to supply it. That point has also been made in this debate. There may be a danger in countries such as the UK and US squabbling over vaccines, but perhaps the more serious danger is that poorer countries will be left without adequate supplies. Maybe if we ourselves struggle with a shortage of resources to combat flu, it will test our resolve to help countries less fortunate than ourselves. I would be grateful for reassurance on that point from the Minister.
	Finally, we have seen various reactions to this outbreak. The very word pandemic can be a problem. It sounds very dramatic and suggests that the outbreak is both widespread and serious. However, I understand it to mean that a disease is widespread, but is not necessarily serious. That understanding is gradually spreading. We could have what is technically a pandemic that is not serious in its effect.
	There is a balance to be struck between encouraging the public to be aware and careful, but not panicking. I accept that it is difficult for the WHO, and indeed all Governments, to get the balance right. The phrase crying wolf comes to mind, and the danger is that if something more serious comes along in a year or two, we will again call it a pandemic, but by that time no one will take us seriously. It has been suggested that it is inevitable that for every pandemic there are likely to be a dozen false alarms; I wonder whether the Minister agrees.
	Perhaps one of the good results of the MPs' expenses debacle being all over the media is that it has reduced the media hype over swine flu. However, as has been said, it is better to be a little over-prepared than a little under-prepared. I liked the statement on the website of Steven Novella:
	When there is a rustling in the bushes it is appropriate to cry wolf, knowing most of the time it will just be a deer or something else. But if we wait until the wolf is at our throats, it will be too late to react.
	I support the Government's action, and especially the way in which they have worked with the Scottish Government.

Bill Wiggin: This is a subject on which I do not normally speak, but I have listened to the debate and, for once and perhaps uncharacteristically, I think that much of what the Government are doing is very good. I especially like the swine flu information leaflet, which explains the risks carefully and what people should do if they have returned from Mexico or have any fears.
	Like all hon. Members, I treat the safety of my constituents as paramount. I am delighted by what I have heard today about the steps the Government are taking and the work that my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) has done to ensure that the Government do not neglect any area. Theyand especially my colleagues on the Front Benchare to be congratulated on doing a marvellous job on this subject. However, there is one little aspect of the debate to which I seek to draw attention, and that is the swine bit. I object to that name for this disease.
	My constituency contains pig farmers, who are deeply worried that giving that name to this flu will have an impact on their business. I have looked up why it is called swine flu and I shall cite the definition in a moment. The concern is that the market for pig products will be affected because of public fear. That is especially unfortunate at a time when the industry faces enormous pressures. We need to ensure that this risk to our people from the current outbreak is not another nail in the pig industry's coffin. We have an opportunity to demonstrate that joined-up government is not just something that we talk about, but something that can be delivered so that the people are safe.
	In the UK, there are 470,000 breeding sows producing just over 9 million pigs a year. England accounts for 82 per cent. of the UK's breeding pigs, Scotland for 4 per cent. and Wales for less than 1 per cent. About 92 per cent. of pigs are kept on modern commercial farms, of which there are about 1,400, and the rest on about 10,000 smallholdings. These pigs are well kept and not the dirty creatures that stories would make out. This is a modern and important industry, which is under pressure from red tape and bureaucracy, the outbreaks of foot and mouth disease in 2001 and 2007, and the loss of non-EU markets owing to exotic diseases. Like most industries, the pig industry is seeing increases in production costs, feed costs and fuel costs.
	The average retail prices of pork and pork products have increased by 37 per cent. in a yearthat is about 1.79 a kilogrambut the average price paid to farmers has increased by just 27p per kilogram. Estimates from the British Pig Executive, BPEX, show that in 2007 farmers are paid about 1.10 per kilogram even though it cost them 1.44 to produce. That led to the Pigs are worth it! campaign, which I thought was extremely helpful and successful. We are always, of course, subject to competition from cheaper imports.
	Since 1997, the size of the English pig herd has reduced by 40 per cent. Despite the negative press for pigs and the pig industry, there remains some uncertainty about whether pigs in Mexico are the cause of this outbreak. The advice posted on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs website states:
	There is still considerable uncertainty as to the true situation in pigs in affected areas
	and that more information will be available following the completion of the OIE-Food and Agriculture Organisation mission to Mexico. I hope that the Minister will have the opportunity in her closing comments to provide us with an update on this mission and when it is likely to publish its findings.
	I also wonder whether the Minister agrees that newspaper articles and internet blogs with headlines such as Swine flu: British pig industry leaders 'reckless and selfish', as put out by Animal Aid, and Swine flu: is intensive pig farming to blame?, as put out by a Member of the European Parliament, Caroline Lucas, in  The Guardian, are not only potentially misleading to the public but extremely damaging to the pig industry? Farmers in this country take biosecurity seriously and take action to keep their animals safe from disease. They have the highest standards in the world. The Government could help to support pig farmers by reassuring the pig industry that they will send out positive messages about British pork. The current outbreak cannot be transmitted by eating pork products, according to the WHO and the Food Standards Agency.
	The WHO has decided to back away from labelling this outbreak swine flu and instead refers to it as H1N1. That is proper and clear. The virus has elements of swine, avian and human varieties and it is yet to be determined whether pigs have caused the outbreak or not. Joseph Domenech, the chief veterinary officer in the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation in Rome, has said:
	It's not a swine influenza, it's a human influenza.
	How much of that does the Minister agree with?
	In view of the potential damage to the pig industry that could be associated with negative perceptions of linking pigs to the outbreak, will the Minister consider referring to the flu by some other term, including in the information guide sent out to the public? Other names could include Mexican flu or H1N1, which is what I would prefer.
	There can be a risk to pigs from humans. In Canada, a farm worker reportedly infected a herd of pigs with swine flu. In Afghanistan, the only pig has been quarantined. The contingency plan for exotic animal diseases published by DEFRA and last updated in December 2008 appears to make no mention of any variety of swine flu, despite there being cases of other swine-related influenza strains previously in the UK. Will modifications be made to the plan to cover further outbreaks, especially as the virus spreads to pigs? Will antivirals be available for workers on pig farms? Will a vaccine be developed for pigs? That is a question that I do not expect the Minister to answer today, but it is one that I shall leave for DEFRA. Will there be a mass cull of pigs, as happened in Egypt?
	The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has stated that the Government's
	risk assessment indicates that there is a negligible likelihood of introducing human influenza strain H1N1 to the UK by the legal import of pigs or pig products from North America.
	Will the Minister reassure us that that will be kept under review, and that action will be taken to reduce the risks further?
	Air travel is one way for influenza strains to spread quickly across the globe. Last year, UK airports handled about 235 million passengers. What efforts have been made to put together a list of countries where the risk of infection is higher? Does the Minister know how many carriers of this strain might be coming into the country?
	Current cases in the UK appear to be linked to those who have travelled to Mexico or had contact with people from north America. The first known case of infection here, on 26 April, involved Mr. and Mrs. Askham, who had been to Cancun on their honeymoon. It was reported that the authorities had no plans to trace the other passengers on the flight, as they were not classified as close contacts. However, a 12-year-old girl from Downend in south Gloucestershire was on the same flight as Mr. and Mrs. Askham, and she was diagnosed on 1 May.
	With regard to those who have travelled to countries where there are cases of this influenza strain and who have been infected by it, will the Minister reassure the House that efforts will be made to trace people who travelled with them? In that way, they can be tested and, if necessary, treated. We need to know how the virus got into this country, what risk it poses to the population, and what the Government are doing about it.
	A final word about the link to pigs: scientists have suggested that all RNA segments of the 2009 swine fluA/H1N1viral genome are of swine origin, and they have stated that
	this preliminary analysis suggests at least two swine ancestors to the current H1N1, one of them related to the triple reassortant viruses isolated in North America in 1998.
	Given that, it must be fair not to refer to the virus as swine flu, pig flu or Mexican flu, but rather to stick to the correct term, which is H1N1. Our pig industry would be grateful for that.
	I am grateful to the Government for the steps that they are taking to protect people from the illness. I hope that the predicted level 6 pandemic does not arrive, but the Secretary of State's opening remarks were deeply worrying in that regard, as he made it clear that the disease is considerably more serious than had been thought. However, let us avoid collateral damage in our food-producing sector as well.
	I am grateful to the House for suffering me to talk about the pig industry. I hope that the Minister will continue to make every effort to protect my constituents.

Robert Wilson: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin). In his opening comments, he said he did not know much about this subject, but he showed that he is a great champion of the countryside, and of farmers in particular.
	I want to ask some important questions arising from recent discussions with my local primary care trust, and I hope that the Minister will deal with them in her closing remarks. The questions are important, as swine flu has arrived in Berkshire: one case was reported in Slough and there is also a suspected case in Wokingham.
	I was rather surprised to hear a so-called expert argue on the radio that we should allow the current milder form of the virus to spread widely through the population, as that would allow people to build up resistance to the more virulent strain that may arrive in the autumn. Will the Minister comment on that view? Does she believe it is a suitable response, and what are her own expert advisers telling her?
	As I said, I have had discussions with my local PCT and have reviewed its pandemic plan, which I have with me this afternoon. I would like to congratulate the staff of the PCT on putting together a comprehensive and very welcome plan, but I am concerned about several issues.
	First, I am not convinced that the out-of-hours GP service will be robust enough to handle the scale of a pandemic. Many areas of the country, and parts of Berkshire, have their challenges and problems with the out-of-hours service. I just hope that my local PCT will re-check the robustness of local out-of-hours GP services to ensure that those services can cope with all the circumstances that might arise. If they cannot, what contingency plans will the PCT have in place?

Bill Wiggin: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I have personal experience of the failures of out-of-hours services. When my daughter was ill on a Sunday in Herefordshire, there was no GP available for anybody in Ledbury, where we live, despite its having two GP surgeries, so we had to travel all the way to Hereford, where there was a Primecare centre, bang next door to an accident and emergency department. It totally defeats the point of having doctors spread through the community if people all end up in the county hospital at the same time. The Government have spent so much money on doctors and the health service, so I do not know why care does not reach the people who need it the most. That is perplexing. I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees.

Robert Wilson: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The out-of-hours service is particularly fragmented in countryside areas such as the one he represents. I think we would find general agreement across the House that there are significant problems.
	Secondly, I am concerned that we have not heard much about so-called closed communities. I have a young offenders institution in my constituency, and I am worried that robust plans may not exist for those closed communities. I would welcome the Minister's comments on whether there are any national plans, and on what advice on best practice has been given to local PCTs. Obviously, we are talking not just about prisons, but about places such as residential homes.
	Finally, my PCT's local plan does not allow for prophylaxis for family members, and I believe that that is a mistake. If we are to limit and subdue the spread of the illness, such prophylaxis is particularly necessary. I understand that national guidance is moving us towards prophylaxis for family members and those in close contact with people who have the illness. Would the Minister like to comment on the advice being given to local PCTs, so that their plans might be updated in the light of that? I expressed my view to my local PCT in no uncertain terms: I told it that I think the omission is a weakness in its local plan. Having made those few comments, I look forward to the Minister's response.

Michael Penning: Looking at the clock, it seems that the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo), and I have about an hour each in which to speak, but with the permission of the House, I will not go over much of what has already been discussed this afternoon. It has been an excellent debate, and I hope in good faith that the Minister will understand that there are questions that need to be asked on various issues, with regard to the situation both in the UK and abroad. Bearing that in mind, I hope that she accepts that the questions are asked in good faith. Front Benchers on both sides of the House have worked closely together. I know that the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who is sitting beside me, is grateful for the briefings that the Secretary of State has given the Front Benchers throughout the past four weeks.
	It is only four weeks since we first knew of the state of swine fluI will call it that for the moment, but I will come on to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) shortly. The debate's title is Swine Flu, but I agree that it should not be, and there are reasons why it should not. Sadly, in the past four weeks, there have been difficult articles in the press across the country that have, at times, genuinely frightened people. I pay tribute to the  Evening Standard, which realised that it had got things wrong; the Secretary of State mentioned the matter earlier. It advertised extensively to address the mistakes that it had made. I know that the  Evening Standard is a large newspaper, but I wish that some of the national newspapers would address the fact that they got some of the coverage wrong. There was a degree of scaremongering.
	Some of the so-called experts on the periphery of the debate have also not helped in keeping the public not only correctly aware of what is going on, but factually aware, as has been shown by some of the polling over the last few days. About 50 per cent. of the public think that the reaction of Her Majesty's Government and the NHS has been correct and proportionate, and about 50 per cent. think that there has been an overreaction. As the leaflets drop through the letterboxes and the advertising campaigns on the websites and in the national media continue, the public will be more aware of the difficult situation that we are in, particularly in Britain where our responsibilities lie, but also elsewhere. It may be necessary to move to stage 6, the pandemic situation, and if we do, the pandemic flu plan structure will be the bedrock from which we go forward.
	Much of what has been proposed cannot be rigidly adhered to within the planning structure. For example, according to the pandemic flu planning documents, in the event of an outbreak in a school, that school would expect to be closed for three weeks. Most schools have decided to close for a week and assess the situation as it develops, and that is a sensible way to proceed. What we do not want is headmasters deciding to shut a school for three weeks when the situation is fine within 10 days.
	We have had an excellent debate, and many new points have been made, which shows that we are all on a steep learning curve as to the effect that this will have on our communities, whether we are on the Opposition Front Bench, in the Minister's Department, or on the Back Benches. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has apologised to the House for leaving to chair a Committee, but he raised some important points on behalf of his constituents. Heathrow is smack-bang in the middle of his constituency, and he was very concerned about training not just for cabin crewa point also raised by the Liberal Democratsbut for staff within the airport infrastructure, so that they know how they can help.  [ Interruption. ] I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to the Chamber.
	The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) made some important points. Will the Minister tell us either when she replies or later in writing how the negotiations were taken up early on and why the national flu line is completely separate from NHS Direct and NHS Choices, the online information service. That may be because the NHS deals with about 6 million calls a year and we expect the national flu line at full on-stream capacity to be dealing with about 2 million a day. Such IT and telecommunications infrastructure will require a robustness and resilience that this country has never experienced before. I listened intently when the Secretary of State told us that we were piloting and testing, but there is no way that that infrastructure could be tested to that capacity, unless it went through a similar telecommunications system. Why has NHS Direct been asked to pick up the situation nowit is doing a good job, but it is strugglingyet it was excluded from the contract for the NHS emergency flu line?
	The hon. Gentleman also dealt with the assessment of people who think that they may have swine flu. Why are we not using our skilled pharmacists to asses whether patients have swine flu before giving them the drugs required. I know that my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State has taken that up with the Secretary of State. Those pharmacists are the biggest point of contact in our constituencies for medication and the plan is to distribute the drugs through them. For years, we have quite rightly been increasingly using the expertise of pharmacists to diagnose, take blood pressure, undertake blood tests and lots of other things, so it would seem to be logical to use them for diagnosis. Will the Minister respond to that point?
	I have been slightly confused in the past couple of days as to who is in charge of handling the pandemic situation. The people in charge of producing the November 2007 document were Professor Lindsey Davies and Mr. Bruce Mann. The former is the national director of pandemic influenza preparedness in the Department of Health, but last week, the chief executive of the NHScompletely out of the blue, because there is nothing within the document to indicate his involvementindicated that he had appointed a national flu resilience director, Mr. Ian Dalton. Will the Minister indicate what the roles of those two people are? Has Professor Davies's role changed, and what role has Mr. Ian Dalton taken up? Who is in charge and to whom do they report? There seems to have been an important change in the protocols.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) raised many important issues, but hand washing is very important. We are conscious of the capacity of the influenza to spread. If we get to the pandemic stage, facilities for hand washing are absolutely imperative, especially where there are large congregations of the public, such as railway stations and airports. Hand-washing facilities therefore must be open to the public free at the point of use, which can happen at the flick of a switch. I am sure that the odd 20p that is lost to the people who operate those facilities is tiny in proportion to what we could lose.
	Another important question raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Poole and for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson) is what we do about closed institutions such as prisons, secure hospitals and, especially, barracks. We know from experience that such influenza viruses move very fast through closed institutions and we have heard absolutely nothing, as far as I am aware, about what we are planning to dothat is not a criticism, but a genuine question. What are we planning to do about closed institutions? The Mount prison, which is on the edge of my constituency, has 640 inmates and most of the people who work there live in my constituency. If we go to a pandemic situation, we must have a strategic plan for those people. We have learned from experience, particularly of 1919, that flu flies through military barracks once inside.
	The Secretary of State said quite a lot about the purchase of face masksspecialist face masks that can restrict the virus getting through rather than the sorts of things we saw on the streets of Mexico City. I have tried to find out from different organisations, especially in the NHS supply chain, about gloves. Within the pandemic flu protocols, disposable gloves are crucial in containing influenza, yet we do not seem to know how many have been purchased or how many are out there. It would be useful to know exactly what is happening.
	The other question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole is this: what happens if and when we move to the next level? Page 55 of the flu pandemic document shows that we should go to a gold command structure. The structure is quite complicated, but it is understandable. The civil contingencies committee is at the head of the structure, but who chairs that committee? I have experienced gold command in my constituency. The police tend to chair gold commands, but who will chair that committee?

Robert Syms: I have not ploughed through the booklet, although I presume that my hon. Friend, as a health spokesman, has done so. I just think it would be useful if we had some information in our offices, particularly relating to our own area, so that we or our local authorities have the right phone numbers and know what the chain of command is.

Michael Penning: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that important point. Smack-bang in the model set out in the document is the local resilience forum and strategic co-ordination group. I do not expect everyone to read the document, but it does explain the arrangements. The next step in preparing for the next stagestage 6is ensuring that we in our constituency offices and, more important, our communities as a whole have the information needed on what to do next; it should not be left to gossip. We will be able to work with our constituents, local councillors and others to make that sort of information is available. In addition, local authority call centres need to know whom they should pass calls on to.
	I fully understand the point my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster made about pigs. We should stand up in this place and the Minister should say from the Dispatch Box that there is no danger from eating pork: as long as it is cooked correctly, pork makes wonderful eating. I agree with my hon. Friend when he says surely this strain of flu could have been given another name. In fact, it haswe do not need to call it swine flu. The World Health Organisation calls it influenza H1N1that is the official title. It should not be called Mexican flu, either. As I was told a few minutes ago, the so-called Spanish flu of 1919 appeared in America. I think that people can understand its official titleit is in the papers often enoughand we should wean ourselves off calling it swine flu, because that has had a detrimental effect on pork sales here and in other countries. I know that we have no influence on decisions by other countries, such as Egypt, to slaughter their pigs, but, to be frank, what a waste that is of good stock.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East talked about the quality of out-of-hours GP services. That topic was raised at Health questions this week and it is regularly discussed by Back Benchers and Front Benchers. The truth is that our GPs are the best people to commission the out-of-hours care that our constituents deserve, because they have the empathy, understanding and knowledge needed. In fact, the situation is a complete mess, with a postcode lottery for out-of-hours services. At a time of crisis, the last thing we need is confusion in such services.
	My final point is on third world or less economically developed countries. It is possible that some such countries will suffer a pandemic outbreak and we will not. It is imperative that, with our European friends and the WHO, we have in place a structure or plan whereby we do not stockpile a vaccine here when we have not and are not likely to move to stage 6, and leave other countries to suffer because they cannot obtain supplies. Although I fully understand that we have a sleeping contract and will, we hope, get the vaccine within the next few months, if other countries, particularly third-world countries, suffer a pandemic and we do not, we will have to examine our conscience and decide how to help those countries in their hour of need.
	The Minister of State, Department of Health (Dawn Primarolo): I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to today's debate. It will be clear to anyone listening to or watching the debate that all hon. Members, regardless of party, are focused on making sure that we have in place the best measures to protect our citizens, should that become necessary.
	The challenges that swine flu poses in this country are real and considerable. Before I go any further, however, I should pick up on the point that the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) made about its name. If he turns to the leaflet that was sent out, he will see that it clearly states:
	There is no evidence of this...disease circulating in pigs in the UK
	and that scientists are investigating the origin. Linked to that, the hon. Gentleman referred to the statements that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the chief veterinary officer made about the safety of consuming pig products in this country, and I agree with everything that the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) said in his closing remarks about the safe consumption of pig products.
	However, I must say to both hon. Gentlemen that, from tracking public recognition and measuring public awareness, we have found that the virus is clearly fixed in people's minds as being called swine flu. Indeed, recent information shows that 75 per cent. of people agree that the Government are very well or fairly well prepared, and that 80 per cent. are satisfied with the information available. I am sure that all of us agree that awareness, clear information and transparency are of great importance to the general public, so I caution the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead and others that changing tack and calling the virus H1N1that snappy titleor anything else may not necessarily help in the communication of information. Nevertheless, I absolutely take his point that language is important to ensure that people are properly informed, while not causing concern elsewhere or, as he rightly and understandably pointed out, detriment to others' occupations, whether they are in the pig industry or anywhere else.
	Although scientists are making progress on charting the genetic fingerprint of the virus, understanding its characteristics and tentatively assessing its impacts, there is still a great deal that we do not know about the infection and how it will develop in the weeks and months ahead. That point crucially underpins the information that we make available, and, as the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) said in his opening remarks, transparency and proportionate information are crucial.
	In the face of that uncertainty, it is imperative that we have the appropriate measures to protect the public and ensure continuity throughout the public servicesall points, indeed, that hon. Members have addressed themselves to today. We must ensure also that when the virus becomes more established in this country, if it does, we are properly prepared and, as the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) said, hope for the best but prepare for the worst.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health made it clear that experts warn us to expect further increases in the number of cases in the short term, and we must brace ourselves for the strong likelihood of a serious pandemic in the next six to nine months. Fast, effective prophylaxis has so far helped to contain the spread of the disease in this country. I join other Members in expressing thanks to the national health service staff, health protection officers and Department of Health officials who have worked tirelessly in this containment phase. We have yet to see sustained, community-based transmission, but I reiterate that we need everyone, including the general public, to continue to do their bit. Preparing for a wholesale pandemic is important; appropriate plans and measures must be in place so that we will be ready if the virus becomes more established. That means monitoring and assessing whether and when the current policy of using Tamiflu is becoming ineffective or counter-productive as the virus becomes endemic.
	In his opening remarks, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire posed a number of questions, as did all the other Members who spoke. When I can, I shall do my best to answer them. There is the issue of antiviral stocks and of the triggers that will move us from our current containment phase to a mitigation phase. How do we judge when that will be, given that all the current evidence is that in this country the infection is very mild and that people respond well to Tamiflu and recover? I am still taking advice and having discussions with scientists, but at this stage there are two principles. The first should be in respect of sustained community transmission. Secondly, we should consider the severity of the disease and take scientific advice at the relevant point on whether we can still contain it and whether we need to move to the next stage. We are doing a lot of work on that so that we understand precisely when that shift may be made. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, that issue is important in respect of the impact on the antiviral stockpile and of moving to household prophylaxis as a sensible strategy in that period.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked why our approach to school closures was different from that in the United States. He said that he thought that the US was now basing its considerations more on economic and educational outcomes than on the disease, and that might well have played a part in the decisions. The advice to us, however, is that the US is no longer in the containment phase; it has moved to the mitigation phase for reasons of geographical distribution and its ability to contain the viral infections. Given that, its attitude to school closures is different from ours.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way, but I was not asking about the difference between the position in America and that here. I entirely understand that the Americans decided that they could no longer contain the virus, which was circulating in the community; sustained community transmission was taking place. My question was different. Looking at the second principle, if we believed that there was sustained community transmission of the virus in this country, and if the virus was not severe, would we have begun the process of examining whether our advice would remain the same as that in the national contingency plan? The current advice is that a school closure should be triggered automatically when a case is confirmed. Alternatively, would we re-examine the issue? Clearly, the Americans have re-examined it and reached a different conclusion.

Dawn Primarolo: I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman's questionI hope he will forgive me. I can confirm that we are undertaking consideration of what advice would be given and what action we should be taking if the outbreak remains mild. I am sure that the Secretary of State will want to continue to keep the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for North Norfolk apprised of those considerations as we move through them. This goes back to my earlier point about a better understanding of the nature of the virus and the extent of the illness that it causes here in the UK. It is about not only the current investigations into the production of a pandemic vaccine, should that be necessary, but informing the other strategies in the plan.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about critical care and ventilators. Trusts have been advised that they could double their critical care capacity for ventilated patients during a pandemic. The possibility of additional ventilators is being considered, including the question of whether all ventilators are being used. That will form part of the ongoing discussions.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about support for other countries, as did the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead, and referred to the money that has already been contributed by the Department for International Development. In addition, the World Health Organisation has a stockpile of drugs. The WHO meets this coming weekend and early next week, and those considerations will be very much on its agenda. We look forward to seeing exactly what type of measures will be necessary, and we have made it clear that we stand ready to make our contributions in exactly the areas that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Andrew Lansley: I welcome what the right hon. Lady says about our willingness to participate positively and constructively in the next few days in the discussions with the WHO. So that we do not convey any misleading impression, I should point out that its stockpile of antiviral drugs is probably no more than about 5 million doses, so its ability to satisfy potential demand in developing countries may be very limited.

Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman is right. However, he also knows that the WHO, the US authorities, the UK authorities and all the health authorities that are working on this are looking carefully at exactly what we are dealing with. The virus is being analysed to see what may happenparticularly, as we track it through the southern hemisphere's flu season, what that may mean in terms of where a returning virus, whether mutated or not, goes next and what arrangements therefore need to be in place. These are absolutely the right questions for the hon. Gentleman and others to be asking. The Government are very alive to this. We completely appreciate the dual wishes of this House: first, that we protect our own citizens; and secondly, that in a world pandemic, we play our part, particularly with the poorer and developing countries that may not have access to the drugs that we have.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) referred to actions at airports, in particular, and ports of entry. He went on to ask several questions about the responsibilities of airlines to their staff, and about whether there is greater vulnerability among the communities around Heathrow. He has been able to return from his other duties, and I hope to address the points that he raised.
	At present, with the Government deploying strategies within an attempt to contain the infection, the work being undertaken does not involve the screening of all passengers. It is simply not possible to model and undertake that, and when it has been attempted elsewhere it has been ineffective. What is going on is that, first, we are ensuring that passengers are provided with information and advice. Secondly, symptomatic passengers identified en route are seen by port staff. Thirdly, if necessary, contact tracing is undertaken with regard to passengers on particular flights and anyone else who may have come into contact with them, for the purpose of ensuring that those who need Tamiflu on a prophylactic basis have it provided.
	Airlines are responsible for their employees, and there are already actions that they are required to take. They have received, and continue to receive, advice through the Health Protection Agency, and particularly guidance about their employees. With several hundred returning travellers, identifying those with symptoms has been crucial. It is important to keep things in perspective by noting that to date, only 31 cases have been confirmed among those returning travellers. The surveillance and work being undertaken are clearly doing their job.
	On the wider considerations for the community, the question is whether there is sustained spread across the whole country, which would mean that we needed to move on from the containment phase. The primary care trusts and hospitals have plans for those circumstances. The hon. Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson) pointed out that he had had access to his local PCT's plan for a pandemic, and the responsibilities are the same for the PCT that covers the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington. If he feels that he has not received enough information or been given access to the PCT's plan as the hon. Member for Reading, East has, he can certainly write or speak to me and I will ensure that he has access to it. Local health authorities are making those plans, and that should be going on in my hon. Friend's local area, including at Hillingdon hospital in its role as the nearest hospital to Heathrow.

John McDonnell: I raised the specific point about the staffing of the health unit at Heathrow, and I would be grateful if the Minister could examine whether she is satisfied that the staffing and resourcing levels there are adequate.

Dawn Primarolo: I have already examined, as my hon. Friend would expect, the surveillance expectations at all our points of entry, and particularly Heathrow as a busy airport. However, I am more than happy to assure him that I keep that matter under review. I shall certainly return to it and satisfy myself about the situation again. If he has any concerns or examples, I shall be grateful if he lets me know about them.
	I have already answered some of the points raised by the hon. Member for North Norfolk. As for travel restrictions, there are none to the United States at the moment. It is important that travellers going anywhere should have proper up-to-date information, and we are making sure that is the case. We are keeping under review the advice given to travellers to Mexico.
	On the hon. Gentleman's question about understanding more about what has happened in Mexico, a team from the Health Protection Agency has been there over the past 10 days to work with the authorities. The team has returned to the United Kingdom with a great deal of information, which we can consider in greater depth. I hope that some of the questions that the hon. Gentleman and others are asking will be answered.
	On antibiotics, I confirm that we are on track to have sufficient stocks to cover 31 per cent. of the population19.6 million courses by the end of Septemberwith the stockpile reaching over 10 per cent., which is 6.3 million courses, by the end of May.
	The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) asked various questions, some of which I have already answered. On face masks, no scientific evidence supports their general use, and such use is not part of the Government's strategy. Although television images from elsewhere in the world might convey an impression that such use should be made, there is no evidence for a general issue of such masks. As the Secretary of State said, the Government have increased our order to 226 million additional face masks and 34 million of the high-quality face masks.
	The hon. Gentleman and others asked about the role of the national director for NHS pandemic influenza preparedness. Let me be clear: this person's role is to strengthen lines of communication and implementation of policy with regard to any operations of the NHS flu plan, and anything necessitated by the pandemic. Professor Lindsey Davies, who has been mentioned, remains responsible for national pandemic preparednessbut it is important to ensure that decisions are implemented promptly and smoothly across the NHS, and that information is available. The hon. Gentleman requested that more information be made available to Members of Parliament for their offices, should they be contacted. I am happy to consider that point, because it would be relatively easy to provide, over and above the information available to the general public, a simple guide for MPs' constituency offices about where to direct concerned constituents.
	On the preparedness of primary care trusts' plans, we do not propose to publish them at this time; we are busy, as they should be, ensuring that preparedness is at the right level. PCTs are responsible for developing appropriate local plans for their communities, and the Department of Health has issued guidance on the interim arrangements that we would expect, including on the flu line.
	The hon. Member for Reading, East asked me to comment on those who have suggested that the best thing to do is just to go out and get the flu, and not take any personal hygiene steps to prevent it. Indeed, one of his colleagues, the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries), gives the same advice on her website. The chief medical officer's advice is clear: that is not appropriate action in the current situation. There are still so many uncertainties about the virus that the best thing to do is to be prepared and to take the necessary steps.
	I took note of what the hon. Gentleman said about his PCT's preparedness. He also raised the important point about closed communities and what needs to be done. Plans are in place to help those in closed institutions, such as prisons, and the PCTs should have that in hand, including the use of Tamiflu, should that be necessary.
	Some scientists believe that swine flu cases could ease over the summer, but we most not signal a lowering of our guard or a downsizing of our preparations. The swine flu pandemic, and with it a serious outbreak in this country, may or may not be imminent, but the threat remains real, remains urgent, and demands our complete attention. We must continue along the same path of being neither alarmist nor complacent, taking the strong and sensible measures necessary to cope with all eventualities, and continuing to work in partnership across the Floor of the House to ensure the very best outcome.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House has considered the matter of swine flu.

UNDER 10-METRE FISHING FLEET

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. (Claire Ward.)

Michael Jabez Foster: I am grateful for the opportunity, somewhat earlier than anticipated, to speak yet again on behalf of the fishing communities of Hastings and Rye. I am sorry that it is necessary to raise the same issue, but the urgency of the message is not getting through. I shall try to leave no ambiguity as to the importance of responding to the cry for justice for the under 10-metre fleet in Hastings and Rye. The issue is that of quota.
	As we approach the Euro elections next month, I can well appreciate why there is hostility towards the European cause within the fishing communities. The price that Britain paid for joining the EU back in the 1970s was perhaps worth while in many respects, but in terms of fishing, it was a huge cost. That, of course, was under a Conservative Government, who have never been forgiven for what happenedfor the surrender to the European Community of the greater part of our fishing grounds. In return, the UK was allowed a relatively small proportion of quota, but even that gross unfairness is not the issue today. No major party is suggesting withdrawal from the EU, and thus we are stuck with the EU distribution to national governance of a negotiated share of the catch each year. It is then for national Governments to divide up that quota catch within the fishing industry, and it is that calculation that has brought the under 10-metre fleet to virtual extinction.
	I acknowledge that the under 10-metre fleet in particular may not be significant economicallynot to the nation, anywayin terms of the sector's direct contribution. However, it is often forgotten that the contribution that the sector makes to tourism and other onshore industries is significant. That is certainly the case in Hastings and Rye. The key issue is how we as a nation distribute the quota among the fishing industry. As I have brought to the Government's attention before, and it is well known, the division of 96 per cent. of total quota to the over 10-metre fleet, and just 3 per cent. to the under 10-metre fleet, is manifestly unfair. It has to change, and it needs to change soon.
	Back in December 2006some two and half years agothe then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, having set up a Downing street policy group to look at the sustainability of small fishing fleets, such as that at Hastings and Rye, agreed to meet my local fishermen. In March 2004, the Cabinet Office strategy unit prepared a report entitled Net Benefits, which stated that:
	the overarching aim of fisheries management should be to maximise the return to the UK of sustainable use of fishery resources and protection of the marine environment.
	So it was already Government policyfrom then, at leastto support small fishing communities.
	Tony Blair wrote to me on 5 February 2007. I have the letter here, and it states that:
	the Quota Management Change Programme is already working on the future management arrangements for the inshore fleet in light of the Net Benefits report, and ... DEFRA is keen to involve inshore fishermen in the development of those arrangements.
	Two and a half years later, nothing at all seems to have happened. I think that the Minister will understand why it makes my fishermen constituents, and me, so angry that despite our best efforts, DEFRA is immovable. Even the efforts of the Prime Minister of the day to move things on came to naught.
	I shall not bore the House by listing the debates, discussions and meetings that have taken place in the intervening period, but it seemed to me then, and seems to me still, that the Department is in the clutches of the big boys who run the producer organisations, and is incapable of breaking out of their control. It is frequently said that the allocation of quota is based on historical catches, but the fact is that the under-10 metre fleet, which is smallindeed, it consists of the minnows of the industryis not just sustainable, but without significant catch records. As a result, the producer organisations take the cake, or rather the quota, and DEFRA stands by and ticks the boxes. That is certainly what appears to be happening.
	If the big boysthe over 10-metre fleetemployed significantly more personnel, there would be some understanding of the current position, but that is not the case. About 50 per cent. of the personnel of the United Kingdom fishing industry are employed in the over-10 metre sector, and the other 50 per cent. in the under-10 metre sector. So, where is the justice in the current arrangement? Those in the under-10 metre sector are not even permitted to form their own producer organisation in order to bid for their share of the quota.
	The Government seem to suggest that quota is based on historical calculations of catch that cannot be altered. Why? The quota that the UK receives belongs to the UK, not to the producer organisations or to any particular sector. If fairness so demands, it is for the Government to exercise their discretion without fear of producer organisations taking the huff. A doubling of the quota available to the under 10-metre sector would make little difference to the over 10-metre industry, but it would be a life-saving change for the under-10 metre fleet.
	My hon. Friend the Minister was the first person for a long time to acknowledge and understand the injustice, and I compliment him on that. Earlier in the year, a new division for allocation of cod quota was created in area 7D. That was a big step forward, and I do not think it too much to say that those in my local under-10 metre industry were elated about the possibility of a fair deal as a consequence. Quota is normallyor so it is saiddistributed on the basis of the historical catch. In area 7D, which is the bit off the south coast between Hastings and Dover, the under-10 metre fleet accounts for 93 per cent. of the fishing vessels in the area and 83 per cent. of the fishermen employed. There was real hope that the new allocation would follow the established pattern.
	On 18 February, my hon. Friend the Minister wrote to the chief executives of the producer organisations and other interested parties, proposing that a quota of 109 tonneslive weightor 70 per cent. of the overall total should be allocated to the under 10-metre sector in area 7D. The proposed quota was apparently based on official records showing actual landings at that percentage. The under-10 metre fleet believed that its share was even greater, but it did not look a gift horse in the mouth. The allocation appeared to mean that its demands were being recognised for the first time, while also conforming to the historical basis of allocation.
	While the 70:30 split was still minimal, the principle had been established, and my hon. Friend the Minister was held in high esteem as a result. What happened then, however, was nothing short of an outrage. Officials talked again to the producer organisations and the policy was changed around completely: 70 per cent. was now to go to the south-west producer organisation, which only seldom fishes in the area, and 30 per cent. to the under 10-metre sector. I am told that the south-west producer organisation, which has that 70 per cent., for the main part sells it on. It is not even the local fishing industry. This is an outrage, and it is barmy. There is no explanation. What is going on?
	I am sorry to be so forceful to my friend the Minister, who I know really does work hard on this, but the forces of darkness are out there and they are defeating his best efforts. I am asking him to be bold and stand up for fairness and justice, given his acceptance of the argument. We do not need to go over the argument again, as he has accepted it; it is now just a matter of implementing it.
	My friend the Minister is very thoughtful, and I know, by reason of his initial proposals, that he has the interests of the under 10-metre fleet at heart. He was good enough to hold a recent meeting with me and my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), who has a similar interest to me, at which he expressed, first, a clear desire that measures be put in place to ensure the continuity of the under-10 metre fleetthat is to say, that it should have sufficient income to surviveand, secondly, that he would want to enter into a dialogue with all the parties, including the producer organisation and the New Under Ten Fishermen's Association, which now represents the under-10 metre fleet, to ensure that the allocation of quota is more fairly distributed.
	I know that my hon. Friend is wholly genuine in that desire. However, I have to tell him that that is what the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, asked should happen some two and a half years ago, and I cannot share his optimism that further discussions will now make a difference. I fear that this will not be settled by negotiation. It will be settled by decisions being made along the lines of those that my hon. Friend the Minister earlier proposed. I say as loudly and clearly as I can that the Minister has the obligation to divvy up the quota fairly to allow my constituents to survive.
	I understand that my hon. Friend does not want to rock the boatthe industry is dangerous enough alreadybut the under 10-metre industry is not too worried about risking the wrath of the producer organisation and forgoing the crumbs from its table. Now this is not only an issue about survivalalthough it is about thatbut one of justice. I am fairly sure that no court in the land will accept that the current arrangement is fair. Sadly, I think that opinion will be tested, because Paul Joy and his colleagues in NUTFA have now issued proceedings in the courts. That action will inevitably challenge the distribution unless a very early reversal of the recent decision is made.
	I challenge my friend the Minister to give an unequivocal answer as to the justification for the most recent decision of the 96 per cent:3 per cent. split and for the 70:30 split in area 7D in favour of half the total industry, when it was the established practice that that be determined on catch records. I know the answer to that question; I would not ask it if I did not. The answer is that it cannot be justified. There is no argument; there is no basis on which it can be justified. That is why I encourage him to take this bold stand now to remedy that historic failingnot in the fullness of time, but in the here and now.
	I anticipate that my hon. Friend the Minister's response will be as courteous and thoughtful as it always is, but, with respect, I just want to hear the following words: Yes, you're right. We are going to make the change. We understand the justice of the case.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Michael Jabez Foster) on securing the debate. This is a timely juncture for discussion of the under 10-metre fleet for a number of reasons. I thank him not only for the courtesy he has shown me in his opening remarks, but for his forceful and passionate contribution and what he has done in his frequent formal and informal meetings with me in Parliament to act as an advocate on behalf of his constituents and the under 10-metre fleet as a whole. Without my being charming or disarming, I hope we will be able to reach some agreement on a way forward and what we need to do on quota reform.
	As my hon. Friend rightly says, the under 10-metre fleet is an economically, culturally and socially vital part of the life of the UK, in terms not only of coastal communities but the fabric of this island nationit really is. I have said before, and I will say it again, that I am utterly committed to seeing it not simply eke along but thrive and have a very long-term viable future. The question is how we get there. I understand exactly what he is saying. He is saying, Show us some certainty that you will step up to the mark and do it.
	I do not wish to go off on a tangent, but may I begin by discussing common fisheries policy reform, which my hon. Friend mentioned at the start of his contribution? That is a long game, as many things with the EU are, but we are now starting on it. I was the first of the 27 Ministers to address the recent Council, when I spoke boldly and radically for fundamental reform of a 30-year-old policy that is clearly not doing what it was intended to do. I put the following points then, which I shall re-put and work. Right at the heart of radical CFP reform we need to see that fisheries management is integrated with management and conservation of marine resources; that fishing of commercially exploited fish has to be within safe biological limits; that the policy has to ensure a prosperous and efficient fishing industry; that there is effective, targeted support for fishing-dependent communities; and that there is more regional and long-term management of fisheries and devolved responsibility. It is not right that we lurch from year to year in this annual process of bartering and negotiation that is surely not in the best interests of either fishermen or fish stocks. I say that in passing because our discussions of the under 10-metre fleet are integral to how we look at this reform as well.
	Let me discuss the issue that has brought us here today, which, as my hon. Friend rightly says, is the allocations, not least of 7D cod within the Hastings area. First, I shall outline some background. I know he will be familiar with this because we have had discussions about it, but it is helpful to outline it. Before 2009, there had been one total allowable catch for area 7B-K cod. The commission agreed to split that TAC, giving a separate allowance for 7D cod in recognition of the different scientific assessment of the stock. This is one TAC, which has been split into two, and it thereforethis is the important thingdoes not constitute a new fishery, a blank sheet and a clean start.
	However, let me elaborate on that a little. A 30 per cent. increase in the total allocation of cod for area 7D was negotiated at the EU December Councilwe were glad to do thatand it was also secured for North sea cod. On that basis, the Marine and Fisheries Agency consulted the industry on the best way to allocate the new and split quotas in the UK, and my hon. Friend rightly says that it issued a proposal to use the track record of catch for 7D cod. I was pleased to see that proposal, which he rightly says was put forward to signal an opportunity. If it had been accepted, it would have meant that approximately 70 per cent. of the quota would go to the inshore fleet. I am not dancing on words, but let me say that this is probably where some of the misunderstanding has come from and where I went from hero to zero overnight. That was a deliberate proposal and I understand that the inshore fleet had an expectation that it could secure additional cod through it. However, good practice means that we then, on the basis of the proposal, go out to consult the industrythe wide industry. He is right to say that that should include the producer organisationsthe big boys. Across that wide range of participants, the proposal was emphatically rejected by the industry at a meeting on 2 March, where the sector raised serious concerns about any move away from fixed quota allocations.

Michael Jabez Foster: Does my hon. Friend agree that the principle of one person, one vote might be a better way of determining this? Producer organisations represent only 50 per cent. of the industry, but they seem to have about 90 per cent. of the vote. Should we not consider electoral reform?

Huw Irranca-Davies: My hon. Friend makes a good point that goes to the heart of the issue, but I do not think we need to look at electoral reform in terms of how those meetings are run. I hear the powerful voice of the under-10s on this matter. Indeed, that voice has become louder since that meeting and since we responded by returning to FQAs. I am very cognisant of that, not least because of the representations that my hon. Friend has made, and I shall point out how we can act on that. However, that does not mean that I will revisit that decision. There is an issue that we have to deal with promptly and in a considered way, because it is not only an issue for the Hastings fleet. Many in the under 10-metre fleet would regard it as a historical anomaly and there are arguments for and against that, but they see it as a genuine issue of justice. There is a way forward, and perhaps assurances could be given to that effect, including clear mechanisms and a timescale for achieving it. As a Fisheries Minister I have to represent everybody, but I appreciate the problem which the particular issue of the 7D cod has brought to the fore.
	The cod fishery is no doubt important to the fishermen of Hastings and the area, but it is the sole fishery that contributes a significantly higher proportion of inshore fisheries income in the Hastings area. It is anticipated that the sole fishery will be maintained for 2009 and the MFAto its credithas worked hard to source sole, given the huge importance of that stock to the Hastings fleet. My instructions to the MFA are to continue to do all it can to maximise the quota available to the inshore fleet.
	One important issue is how we can use the current system to deliver benefits to the under 10-metre fleet around the UK, and its relationship with the producer organisations and the larger fleet. Only recentlywithin the last few weeksI signed off on an agreed transfer of quota to fishermen in the north-west of significant benefit to the under 10-metre fleet. That was done through the MFA in agreement with the over-10s and the producer organisations. We have done the same recently in my hon. Friend's area and we will continue to look for every opportunity we can.
	When I walked out of the December fisheries negotiations, we were able to deliver a unique package under the Hague preference. I apologise to my hon. Friend because it did not benefit his fishermen, but it had a huge impact on the under 10-metre fleet in the north-east, which walked away with an additional 300 tonnes. It was the first time that an agreement had been reached with the over-10s to split the quotaon a one-off basisthat was invoked under the Hague preference at the December Council. It was split upfront, with half going to the under-10s, and that had a huge impact proportionally. We will continue to look for such deals.
	We think it important under the current system to maintain the ability to engage with the producer organisations and the over-10s to maximise opportunities at this moment. It would not be to the benefit of the fleet to walk away from that at the moment.
	Let me turn now to how I think that we can take things forward.

Michael Jabez Foster: With regard to the implication of the Hague preference, which my hon. Friend has used in the north-east, as he said, it is obviously easier to get agreement if there is an extra cake to split up. Otherwise, there is no cake for anyone. Should he not be considering doing the same for the coastal strip in the south? Is it not the case that the catch is so low at the moment that the Hague preference would have a part to play in making a special case for them, too?

Huw Irranca-Davies: We tend to counter-invoke in response to an invocation of the Hague preference by our ministerial colleagues in Ireland, if they choose to do so. The preference can be invoked only on certain species and certain areas. We tend to counter-invoke in response and try to maximise the opportunities that are available. That opportunity simply was not there. If there was a way to do that, we would certainly consider it. If the opportunity came up in the future, we would not rule it out. I would want my hon. Friend to say that to the fishermen he represents, too.
	Let me say something about the way forward. DEFRA, under my instruction, has now established the sustainable access to inshore fisheries projector SAIF. I have made that commitment previously and I am pleased to announce that it is now under way. Hon. Members will come to know more of the project, because it will be a pivotal way forward for the under 10-metre fleet.
	SAIF will promote DEFRA's continuing involvement with key stakeholders in fisheries management, with the fishing industry, with communities where fisheries play a key role in the local economy and culture, and, of course, with fishermen. We have set up an advisory group to steer and support the work of the project, and I am delighted to announce the appointment of Alan Riddell as chair of the group. He brings significant experience of community regeneration, which is not a million miles away from what we are trying to do with this project. SometimesI know my hon. Friend will agreefishermen are seen in isolation from the rest of what is going on, whereas they are actually integral to their communities.
	Alan Riddell has experience of community regeneration through his former positions as director for local development and renewal for the Department for Communities and Local Government and, prior to that, setting up the East of England Development Agency. At some point, I shall reveal the membership of the advisory group, which reflects the sort of interests that we would want on such a group. That is a good stewardship position.
	The advisory group will bring together expertise from both within and outside the fishing industry to develop new and innovative ideasI want to be bold and quite radicalfor achieving a genuinely sustainable inshore fishing industry. I look forward to working closely with Alan and the advisory group, receiving input from fellow Members of the House, on what I am convinced will be a worthwhile and rewarding project that will have a lasting impact on the English inshore fishing industry.
	We have also taken the first steps to reforming the fleet and putting it on a sustainable footing, controversial as that process has been, through the package of measures including decommissioning and capping fishing effort announced in December. I shall not deal with the detail of that, as I am sure there will be many other opportunities to do so. That process has been successful, as shown by the number of applications. Many of those who felt they were hard done by and appealed have been brought in on appeal. Those moves have been well received, even though they were controversial, and we see them as a building block rather than the end. I have consistently made that clear.
	It is now time to build on that firm foundation. As part of the SAIF project and other work that we have going on, we need to bolster our evidence on the environmental, economic and social impacts of the under 10-metre fleet, specifically focusing on that fleet, and to bring fresh thinking to these challenging issues. As part of that fresh thinking, we should map the way forward for quotas in a careful, considered and timely way. We must engage with the producer organisations and also recognise the widely held view among the under 10-metre fleet that there remains unfinished business. I have used that phrase before, but our work must achieve the agreement of all fishermen, and not be carried out in opposition to the views of some groups. Under the current system, members of the over 10-metre fleet have been willing to engage in quota swaps and so on, but the work that I have set out is the way forward.
	The project that I have described will be critical to reform of the common fisheries policy, and integral to our approach to managing the marine environment. It will be most important, however, to fishermen and the communities in which they work, as they share our desire for a healthy and viable inshore fishing industry. Moreover, they want an industry that will last beyond the 12 months needed for the annual quota negotiations and instead continue for many years to come.
	We are faced with a choice. We can go ahead with considered, strategic and timely work to reform the inshore fleet that will include the SAIF project. The work on quota reform will be taken forward through the quadrilateral ministerial group that I and my counterparts from Scotland, Wales and Northern Irelandthat is, Richard Lochhead, Elin Jones and Michelle Gildernewannounced yesterday. The group will look at quota reform and licensing throughout the UK, and one of our terms of reference is to look at vulnerable communities. Richard Lochhead has problems with his communities, as do I with mine, not least in respect of the under 10-metre fleet.
	We have not announced a timetable for our work, but we need to be realistic. We will have to come to a position on CFP reform to inform our discussions, so we are probably looking at taking 12, 13 or 14 months. However, we will discuss that so that we can set up an out-date or a milestone towards which we can work. I know that my fellow Ministers are as committed to that as I am.
	We announced the establishment of the ministerial group yesterday, and today we announced the chairmanship of the SAIF group. On top of all that, there is the environmentally responsible fishing scheme, which I believe will prove to be a notable success. It is already gearing up to play a constructive role in CFP reform.
	The scheme will run in under 10-metre fleets in six pilot areas in mixed fisheries around the coast. Instead of discarding fish, fishermen will land everything that they catch and sell it. We are examining the sustainability of that approach, and we will take the lessons that we learn to the European Commission because we believe that the scheme could offer a sensible way forward. It has already improved the economic viability of the fishermen taking part, and the early indications are that it is being done in a way that is extremely sustainable for the local fisheries environment.

Michael Jabez Foster: I am glad that my hon. Friend understands the wickedness of discards, but will he say what the timetable for the scheme is? What prospect is there that it can be adopted more widely across the UK, and when could that happen?

Huw Irranca-Davies: We have not come to a firm conclusion about that yet, as we have not seen the results of the first trials, but I have begun discussing with my officials the possibility of expanding or extending the existing scheme. However, I ask my hon. Friend to bear it in mind that the aim of the pilot scheme being carried out with the agreement of the European Commission is to see whether the approach can work. As a result, there will not be a complete roll-out on the basis of the pilots, however we assess them, because they will not provide enough evidence. We have yet to come to a firm decision and we will need to do more, but the pilot schemes do offer the possibility of a new approach. It is one that I am inclined to take further, once we have looked at all the evidence.
	In conclusion, there is an issue to address. I understand the position of the New Under Ten Fishermen's Association, and its frustration, but I say to it clearly that we have a choice. We could spend our precious time and valuable resources on entering into litigation, without bringing about the long-term change that we want. That might, at least temporarily, stymie our shared aspiration for a strong and stable future for the under 10-metre fleet. However, my hon. Friend rightly laid down a challenge to step up to the big boys. By the way, there are big boys in the under 10-metre fleet, as well as in the over 10-metre fleet; there are big, powerful voices. I want to sit down with those people, not throw bricks at them. I think I have already shown, in my time as a Minister, that I am not afraid of taking tough decisions to achieve the right end. I am very willing to come down to Hastings promptly to meet fishermen there, together with my hon. Friend, to discuss the real challenges and the real ways forward. That is a genuine offer that I urge my hon. Friend to pass on to his constituents.
	I know that my hon. Friend will want to play a real, continuing leadership role on the issue on behalf of his constituents and the under 10-metre fleet in his area and across the UK. So do I. We share the ambition of ensuring the long-term viability of our fleets, large and small, in all parts of the UK. This has been a good, timely debate. I believe there is a way forward, but we need to confront the issues head-on. We need to get people to sit down together and take on the issues, and then try to find a way forward that gives the under 10-metre fleet certainty that we are serious about the issue. We should not simply harangueI am not accusing my hon. Friend of doing thisthe very stakeholders to whom we need to say, You will be part of the solution. We need to move forward on the issue; I recognise that. I am committed to doing so, and I hope that he will take those messages back to his constituents.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.